Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION (TRANSPORT BILL)

Mr. Mellish: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to present a humble petition signed by over 3,000 British citizens who are employed in Mitcham?
They are protesting against the proposals of Her Majesty's Government to sell the British transport industry to private speculators. These people believe this to be a backward step in the interest of the few at the cost of the many.
"Wherefore your Petitioners pray that these plans will be withdrawn and measures taken to improve the existing road transport system within its present fabric.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray."
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Coronation (Price Levels)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action is proposed by Her Majesty's Government to prevent exploitation of the general public by undue price rises during the Coronation period; and whether he will consider setting up a committee, representative of all interests, to consider the matter and make recommendations.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): I do not accept the hon. Member's suggestion that undue price rises are to be expected in the Coronation period. I have dealt in previous replies to Questions with allegations of excessive charges by hotels, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the

Minister of Food on 26th November dealt with a Question by the hon. Member suggesting that there might be an undue rise in food prices. I see no need for further action on the lines suggested, and I am sure we can rely on the good sense of all concerned to prove the hon. Member's fears of exploitation unfounded.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that a Bradford bus owner bringing a bus load of 33 people to London, who normally stay at a Streatham hotel charging 24s. a day all-in, has been asked for a figure of £3 a day minimum and for a minimum booking of seven days? Is he also aware that an agency in London states that the Grosvenor House charges are to be doubled for the five-day period, that the Park Lane prices are to be nearly doubled, including viewing accommodation, and that the Piccadilly Hotel charges are to go up by three-fifths?
Does the Minister realise that I have given him these figures in view of his reply and the fact that the Chairman of the Coronation Committee said he knew of only one price rise of 50 per cent.? In view of these figures, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

Mr. Mackeson: I shall be very pleased to look into the first case mentioned by the hon. Lady. The information I received from the Coronation Committee in connection with the others does not tally with the hon. Lady's statement, but, as I told her, we are quite prepared to look into these cases.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that for the Festival of Britain there were few or no complaints compared with those we are receiving today? Can the hon. Gentleman say why the same committee that ran the accommodation for the Festival is not doing it now?

Mr. Mackeson: I do not think the two are comparable. We are most anxious, I am sure, on both sides of the House to see that no damage is done to our tourist trade.

Playing Marbles

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much is being expended during 1951 and 1952 on playing marbles imported from the United States of America.

Mr. Mackeson: I regret that figures of expenditure on these imports are not available.

Air Commodore Harvey: Surely my hon. Friend must know whether dollars were spent on these articles or not? Will he look into the matter and give us a definite assurance that money is not being so spent, because it has been reported that money has been so spent?

Mr. Mackeson: Some money has been spent on the importation of marbles and toys under the token imports scheme which, I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will agree, it is very much in the interest of this country to maintain.

Air Commodore Harvey: In view of the answer I have received, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Development Areas

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has completed his survey of the Development Areas; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I assume that the hon. Member refers to the examination, area by area, mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his statement on 29th October. That examination is not yet completed.

Mr. Grey: Is the Minister aware that his answer will be of great concern to the people living in the Development Areas and also to the industrialists who want to go there? May I ask him whether he will make up his mind speedily in order that the people in these areas may know where they stand?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to my right hon. Friend's statement, I think he will see the complexity of this inquiry. I am not underestimating its importance at all, and neither do I think that the hon. Gentleman desires the examination to be anything but thorough.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that these boundaries are not fixed for all time, and that, if circumstances in the area permit, it would be possible to alter the boun-

daries, either by widening or narrowing them, according to changing conditions?

Mr. Strauss: That was made clear in the statement by my right hon. Friend to which I have referred.

Mr. Grey: All I am asking is that the hon. and learned Gentleman should make up his mind swiftly.

Home-Produced Films (Tax Reliefs)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if Her Majesty's Government will consult with other Governments which are parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade about the desirability of modifying the agreement so as to permit the introduction of discriminatory tax reliefs in favour of the exhibition of home-produced films.

Mr. Mackeson: No, Sir. If the industry were to make representations these would be considered. The general taxation principle and questions of international trade involved would also have to be taken into account.

Mr. Swingler: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the Italian scheme, which, I believe, is being discussed in the industry at present? Why is it that the Italians, who suffer much less from powerful Hollywood competition, can carry out such a scheme without there being any hullabaloo about G.A.T.T., and yet it cannot be done in this country?

Mr. Mackeson: As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, if the industry wishes to make representations to us on this subject we shall be pleased to receive them.

Film Production Fund

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement on the discussions in the film industry about the future of the British Film Production Fund.

Mr. H. Strauss: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: When will the hon. and learned Gentleman be able to make a statement? Is he aware that film production must be planned a long way ahead and that several producers have said that


production will drop early next year unless some definite announcement is made about financial matters?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the answer which I gave him on 14th October, he will see that we are watching the progress of the discussions and we are confident that all sections of the industry realise the importance of bringing them to a successful conclusion. I do not believe it would be helpful to the purpose which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has in mind if the Board of Trade were to intervene now or if I were to add to my statement.

Film Quota

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many first-feature and supporting British films are currently being produced; and if he is satisfied that these numbers are sufficient to enable exhibitors to fulfil the present quota.

Mr. H. Strauss: It is expected that approximately 75 British films of over 6,500 feet in length will have been completed during 1952, but it is impossible to say in advance how many of these films will be generally used as first feature films. In addition, a substantial quantity—certainly over 250,000 feet—of shorter films will have been completed. Production in 1952 will thus be not less than the estimated amount on which the present quota was based.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the assurance has frequently been given that sufficient films were being produced to enable exhibitors to fulfil the quota and yet a powerful exhibitor like Mr. Rank, when prosecuted, is able to persuade the court that insufficient films were produced to enable him to fulfil the quota? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the assurance which he has just given that present production is sufficient will enable the Board of Trade to make a few successful prosecutions next year?

Mr. Strauss: At the conclusion of his supplementary question the hon. Gentleman implied that our prosecutions had been unsuccessful. Recent ones, with only two exceptions, have been entirely successful. Obviously I cannot give an assurance that a defence which the statute permits will never be established.

Mr. S. Silverman: When the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to a defence which the statute permits, will he bear in mind that the Bow Street magistrate decided in a recent case that the statute permitted him to review the Minister's reasonableness or otherwise in granting or withholding an exemption certificate? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the view that that was contemplated by the Act?

Mr. Strauss: I think it is far better, especially in answers to supplementary questions, that I should not comment on the magistrate's judgment in another case, but if the hon. Member will study the transcript of the judgment he will find that what he has said is not wholly accurate.

Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it is very important that people who are subject to the provisions of the Act should know whether it is or is not an absolute necessity in a defence to such a prosecution that they should be able to produce a certificate of exemption and that the Minister's certificate of exemption is conclusive and that its absence is conclusive against the exhibitor? If there is any doubt about the matter, will the hon. and learned Gentleman take whatever steps are open to him to have the doubt cleared up?

Mr. Strauss: What the hon. Gentleman says about the certificate is almost wholly inaccurate. If he will study the transcript of the judgment he will find he is wrong.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Following an earlier supplementary question is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many people hope the time will never come when a Minister can guarantee in advance, even before the magistrates have heard the evidence, the decision of a court?

Mrs. White: asked the President of the Board of Trade to give an assurance that the recent prosecution concerning the failure to observe quota obligations at the Gaumont cinema was undertaken with the full authority of his Department.

Mr. H. Strauss: Yes, Sir, I can certainly give that assurance.

Mrs. White: In view of the astonishing misapprehension which exists, would


the Minister specifically confirm, first, that the Cinematograph Films Council did not and could not initiate proceedings on its own account, and secondly, that no different procedure was followed in his Department in this case than in any other similar prosecution just because Mr. Rank's firm happened to be concerned?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Lady is, in substance, perfectly right. As I have said, it would be quite improper for me to comment on any observations of the learned magistrate, but I have made clear in answer to a previous Question that my right hon. Friend agrees with the view of the learned magistrate that the question of prosecution in such a case is for the Board of Trade and not for the Cinematograph Films Council. The decision in this case was taken by the Board of Trade.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take with regard to the film quota regulations, in the light of the recent decision of the court in the case of the Circuits Management Association.

Mr. H. Strauss: My right hon. Friend will continue to institute proceedings for quota offences under the Cinematograph Films Acts in appropriate cases.

Mr. Robinson: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that this successful defence was not so much that there were not sufficient films available but that there were not sufficient films of a high enough quality in the opinion of the defaulting exhibitor? Does he not think that this decision effectively removes any sanctions there ever were behind the film quota regulations?

Mr. Strauss: The statutes make it a defence in certain cases to say it was not commercially practicable to comply with the quota requirement. That must involve questions of fact which must be decided by the court in each case, but it would be quite wrong to say that a single unsuccessful prosecution means that the Act is useless. There have been eight recent prosecutions and this is an exception in its result.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that now the case is over and the time for appeal

has gone by, it is in no way improper for him or anybody else to make any comment that they think fair about the proceedings or about the judgment? In the light of that, will he bear in mind that the magistrate's decision that this defence was open to the defendant in this case is subject to grave doubt and will he have further inquiry made in the matter?

Mr. Strauss: I tried to explain the position to the hon. Gentleman as well as I could. The decision of the magistrate on the evidence which he heard in a particular case does not involve the proposition that any prosecution under the Act will always have the same result. I did not suggest, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that the case was sub judice. I merely suggested that it would not be very useful to comment on the learned magistrate's decision.

Monopolies Commission (References)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what matters have already been the subject of discussion by the Monopolies Commission; and what matters he has referred to the Commission on which no decisions have yet been reached by him.

Mr. H. Strauss: Since the answer contains a table, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
We have received only one report dealing with goods for which my right hon. Friend is the competent authority, and that report, dealing with matches, will be published in due course.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a feeling that the delay in matters which are referred to and disposed of by the Monopolies Commission is undesirable as it is not in the interests of either industry or the community to have allegations unanswered or not dealt with for such long periods?

Mr. Gibson: When are we likely to see the proposals for extending and improving the work of the Monopolies Commission and for enabling it to come to decisions more quickly?

Mr. Strauss: I cannot make any announcement on that subject today.

Following is the table:

Subject
Referred
Report received
Report laid before Parliament


1. Dental goods
1st March, 1949
3rd November, 1950
1st December, 1950


2. Cast-iron rainwater goods
1st March, 1949
17th February, 1951
14th March, 1951


3. Electric lamps
1st March, 1949
4th September, 1951
4th October, 1951


4. Insulated electric wires and cable
1st March, 1949
26th April, 1952
10th June, 1952


5. Matches
1st March, 1949
3rd October, 1952
—


6. Match making machinery
1st March, 1949
3rd October, 1952
—


7. Insulin
12th December, 1950
7th August, 1952
14th October, 1952


8. Semi-manufactures of copper and copper based alloys (a)
12th December, 1950
—
—


9. Printing of woven fabrics
16th April, 1951
—
—


10. Imported hardwood and softwood timber and plywood
8th October, 1951
—
—


11. Electrical and allied machinery and plant
4th April, 1952
—
—


12. Pneumatic tyres
19th September, 1952
—
—

(a) Calls for a report only on the facts; the other references cover both the facts and public interest.

British Industries Fair

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the division of the British Industries Fair, due to be held in 1954, into smaller specialised shows, in view of the increasing importance of the show to the nation's economic welfare.

Mr. Mackeson: No major change is contemplated in the arrangements for the British Industries Fair in 1954, but the Exhibitions Advisory Committee have been asked to advise on the arrangements in the longer term, and my right hon. Friend will await their report before considering this and other suggestions.

Mr. Snow: Will the hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that the administration and lay-out of this fair will compare well with such continental fairs as the Vienna Fair and the Brussels Fair? Is he aware that many hon. Members were recently very disconcerted when his right hon. Friend stated that he had received practically no complaints about the purely personal amenities at Birmingham, which conflicted very greatly with the evidence given to some hon. Members?

Mr. Mackeson: I shall be very pleased to receive any constructive suggestions.

Coronation (Hotel Accommodation)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that members of the general public, both in this country and overseas, have found difficulty in making hotel reservations in London at Coronation time; that agencies feel that official bodies have not been helpful; and if he will make a statement on his investigations into the case of the company which had a long list of clients from overseas who wanted accommodation, but whom they found it almost impossible to place, except for those who did not mind paying an exorbitant price, and of which he has received details.

Mr. Mackeson: I am afraid it is inevitable that many people will find it difficult to get hotel accommodation in London during the Coronation, but I think that most agencies would agree that, in the difficult circumstances, official bodies, including the Coronation Accommodation Committee, are doing all that can be done. I have written to the hon. Member about the case mentioned in the third part of the Question. The information I have received does not support the allegation about exorbitant charges.

Miss Burton: It is impossible to get anywhere with the Board of Trade. I


sent the hon. Gentleman this information practically a month ago. Does he realise that it concerns an agency which wanted accommodation for 147 people, and that it communicated with 70 hotels but got no satisfaction from any of them? Does he realise that many of these hotels ask on the telephone for a minimum booking of one month, and that the Regent Palace took one booking on the understanding that it was for one month? Will he please look into the matter again.

Mr. Mackeson: I am quite prepared to do what I can to help the hon. Lady, but she must realise that the majority of the London hotels are already booked up. I do not consider that questions like these are helping Britain's reputation overseas.

Sir J. Lucas: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is accommodation at very moderate prices in the country districts round London but that at present there is no one to co-ordinate the offers which are being made? I can send him about 100 offers of accommodation.

Mr. Mackeson: There is at the moment a considerable amount of accommodation available for the Coronation round London, but not in London.

Miss Burton: As the Minister says he is willing to help me, may I ask if he knows that 55 visitors from Antwerp have had to be turned down because they could not take a minimum booking of three weeks? Will he look into the matter and not merely accept the information that is given to him?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir, I will certainly look into the matter, but my information is that the average booking is for a week.

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the chairman of the Coronation Accommodation Committee has announced that this committee is not concerned with the arrangements proposed by hotels on the processional route regarding rooms or seats from which to view the procession; and, as this is the most sought-after accommodation of all, if he will take steps to ensure that the committee accept such responsibility.

Mr. Mackeson: The business of the committee is to help visitors, particularly

those from overseas, to find accommodation in or about London for the Coronation. As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member on 13th November, the committee will investigate any specific cases brought to their notice where exorbitant prices are alleged to have been asked for accommodation. This will extend to charges for accommodation which include facilities for viewing the procession. I do not think it would be reasonable to go further and ask the committee to concern themselves with the prices of seats to view the procession.

Miss Burton: Might I ask the Minister a very elementary question? Does he realise that if the hotels were to publish a list of their charges those of us who entertain these unworthy suspicions would have them disabused if those charges were in order? Will the Government recommend to hotels that a list of charges during Coronation week should be published?

Mr. Mackeson: I will consider the hon. Lady's remarks, but I would remind her that there are very great differences in the facilities which various hotels give to their visitors.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that by reason of extending the Coronation route quite a large number of British children will be coming to London? Will he investigate the possibility of reopening the air-raid shelter at Clapham, which was able to house large numbers of people in days gone by?

Mr. Mackeson: I will look into that question.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister consider asking the various hotel proprietors whether they will give favourable consideration to making part of their accommodation available for disabled ex-Service men and the children of members of the Forces who lost their lives in the last war? Does not he think that that would be a generous action on the part of some of these hoteliers and will he recommend them to do that?

Mr. Mackeson: I am afraid that most of the accommodation has already been let.

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer the question of en bloc bookings by


agencies of hotel accommodation during the Coronation season, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Normanton, for the consideration of the Coronation Accommodation Committee.

Mr. Mackeson: It is the business of travel agents to try to secure accommodation for their customers, and I would have no justification for asking the Coronation Accommodation Committee to investigate cases where an agency tries to secure all the available space in any hotel.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister realise that the public view this matter with great apprehension? We are beginning to wonder whether the Coronation is being staged for the benefit of a few unscrupulous people.

Mr. Mackeson: I must point out that any sensible hotel will look after its regular clientele.

Mr. J. T. Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade the recommendations of the Coronation Accommodation Committee concerning the extra charges and minimum period of booking in London hotels during the Coronation week.

Mr. Mackeson: The Committee tell me their investigations suggest that most hotels are not increasing their prices for the Coronation period. This applies to several of the hotels on the route, and even among those who are raising their charges the highest increase is 50 per cent. The average length of booking over the Coronation period is about a week. This seems to be the period for which most visitors wish to stay.

Mr. Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that hotels have combined to impose these conditions on visitors for the Coronation?

Electrical Manufacturers Catalogue (Export Trade)

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange to place in the Library a copy of the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers Catalogue, 1952, in view of his official commendatory message which appears as a preface to this effort to secure export trade.

Mr. Mackeson: I understand that a copy has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the fact that the Minister thinks that this is an excellent catalogue, will he consider drawing the attention of other industries to the way in which it is presented—in other words, the language of the country in which it is hoped to sell the goods?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will look at this catalogue. I should like to pay a tribute to my predecessor for his efforts to get this sort of publication issued in four or five languages.

Nylon Yarn Production

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of his estimate that the production of nylon yarn in this country should be trebled in 1954, he will give some indication how this increase will be spread over each quarterly period between now and that date.

Mr. H. Strauss: There is unlikely to be any material increase in the production of nylon before the latter half of 1954 when the new manufacturing capacity is expected to come into operation.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that our export market is being very seriously impaired in consequence of the fact that the yarn for the purpose of making these samples is not available? Will he do something to put the matter in order before it is too late and we have lost the whole of our export market?

Mr. Strauss: That is one of the reasons why capacity is being increased.

Foreign Textiles

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that under present arrangements many orders for textiles required for Coronation year will now be obtained from foreign instead of British textile manufacturers, whether he will revise his decision and increase the quotas for classes of goods urgently required but not produced in this country.

Mr. Mackeson: No, Sir. I am not prepared to alter the quotas which have recently been announced for imports from


Western Europe and certain other foreign countries. These quotas have been fixed after taking into account both our own requirements for imported goods and the effect of our import restrictions upon our commercial relations with the supplying countries. They represent the maximum relaxation we can afford at present.

Air Commodore Harvey: I recognise the improvement in the balance of payments and the fact that it is necessary to extend trade with other friendly countries, but does not my hon. Friend appreciate that in places like Macclesfield there is still considerable unemployment? Is it not quite out of order to accept increased imports when our own people are out of work, and will my hon. and learned Friend review the cases where the silk and rayon industries are worse hit than other textile industries?

Mr. Mackeson: I am quite prepared to consider this matter and to discuss it with my hon. and gallant Friend. The point is that quite a number of European countries have liberalised much of their trade to us and pay great attention to this question of exports.

Carpets (Price Increases)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the maximum prices of Axminster and Wilton carpets have been increased by 10 per cent. and 12½ per cent., respectively.

Mr. H. Strauss: Since the Carpets (Maximum Prices) Order, 1951, and the Imported Carpets (Maximum Prices) Order, 1951, were revoked on the 25th April, 1952, there has been a considerable rise in the cost of wool; and this is reflected in the prices to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at this rate newly-married couples will have to live on bare boards, even if they find lodgings? Is he further aware that more than one responsible carpet manufacturer is of the opinion that the latest increases are both untimely and excessive and might lead to a return to what happened last summer, when carpet workers were working short time?

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the principal cause of this increase in price

is the fact that dyed woollen carpet yarn—principally from Australia—has increased in cost by 27 per cent. since last June and that many manufacturers cannot continue to produce at a loss?

Mr. Lewis: How can the hon. and learned Gentleman square his answer with the oft-repeated statements of Ministers that the cost of living would drop and that the Tory Government would bring down the prices of these commodities? Is it not directly contradictory to past statements?

Mr. Strauss: In answer to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the price of two-fold 50 yellow Axminster woollen yarn was 74.5d. a lb. in May, 1952, and 100d. in November.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not that an increase of much more than 27 per cent.?

Mr. Strauss: I thought that by giving that answer I would comfort my hon. Friend.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that carpets are cheaper now than they were a year ago?

Mr. Bottomley: Why should there be a rise in the cost of carpets so soon after the increase in the cost of wool? We have always been told that prices do not follow each other immediately in that way. There must be some other reason for the rise.

Mr. Strauss: To some extent I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but the rise is not immediate. I can give him the figures for all these months. I have the figures month by month. The price was 74.5d. in May and 100d. in November.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the Minister give an assurance that if there is a reduction in the price of wool in three months' time the price of carpets will also come down?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: That question was hypothetical.

Mr. D. Brook: Is it not a fact that on a previous occasion when the price of carpets was fixed and when an Order was made for an advance in their price the Opposition put down a Prayer to annul that Order?

Production and Exports

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, due to a continuing decline in our national production, the adverse effects of the import cuts and the resultant cuts in our export trade, over 12,000 dock workers are unemployed which has meant a revision of the Dock Labour Scheme; what plan the Government have to arrest this decline in production and loss of exports; and how far the Prime Ministers' Commonwealth Conference have or will be discussing these problems, with a view to bringing about an improvement in our terms of trade and national production and thus ensure full employment for the dock workers of this country.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am aware of the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers. The Government are taking all possible measures, for instance, by arranging for additional supplies of steel, to help to increase production and exports. Both the advance estimate of the index of industrial production in October and the provisional figures of exports in November suggest that improvement has occurred. The communiqué issued on the work of the Commonwealth Economic Conference shows that consideration was given to measures for the expansion of both world and inter-Commonwealth trade.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Parliamentary Secretary not seen the United Nations Report? How can we get national recovery if we find, as we do find, that production is continually flagging? Is it not about time the Government did something, because for the first time for six years production is falling and the people of this country are suffering. Is it not about time they gave us something tangible?

Mr. Strauss: The provisional figures of exports in November are 2 per cent. greater than those for October which, in their turn, were approximately 10 per cent. above the average daily rate for the third quarter.

Mr. Jay: Yes, but is not the Minister aware that production and export figures for the first nine months of the year showed a sharp fall? Are not the Government seriously concerned about this? Have they nothing more to suggest beyond the string of platitudes contained

in the Commonwealth Conference communiqué?

Mr. Strauss: I do not intend, in answer to this Question, to discuss the Commonwealth Conference communiqué, but the improvement to which I alluded in my last answer will, I hope, be as much welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman as by all on these benches.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister make it clear that the decline in our foreign trade and in our shipping, and unemployment at the docks, is due to six years of the Socialist policy of bulk purchase abroad and the nationalisation of industries at home, which killed initiative and killed enterprise; and that it will take the best Government in the world some little time to recover from that maladministration, from the effects of which we are still suffering?

Mr. Lee: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when the dock labour scheme was revised the reason given was the smaller amount of exports and imports which the docker had to deal with? If he now says that the Government are satisfied that production is increasing, is not it a corollary that this scheme should be discontinued?

Mr. Strauss: That question should be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Jay: If the Minister will not discuss this subject now, does he not think it would have been better if the Government had given a day for debate on the Commonwealth Conference rather than spending a fortnight on a Transport Bill which nobody wants?

Cut-Glass Trade

Mr. Simmons: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the difficulties experienced by the handmade cut-glass trade as a result of embargoes on imports imposed by Canada and Australia; why he allows those difficulties to be aggravated by imports of table glassware from Czechoslovakia and other sources; and what action he proposes to take to assist the hand-made cut-glass trade.

Mr. H. Strauss: No embargo has been imposed by Canada, but I am aware of the difficulties which this industry has


had to face since import restrictions were imposed in Australia earlier this year and of the efforts it has made to maintain both production and exports. The Board of Trade have already granted additional home trade licences for glassware specially prepared for the Australian market. Imports of cut, engraved and etched domestic glassware are not at present being allowed. Imports of other domestic glassware have fallen considerably this year as compared with last year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not this just one more example of what happens when we abandon the principle of applying controls whenever necessary? Will the Minister reconsider the imposition of controls in this respect, in respect of carpets and in respect of a number of other matters which have already been mentioned today?

Mr. Strauss: Every one of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's deductions is incorrect.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the Minister hold out any hope of increased exports to Australia as a result of the Commonwealth Conference?

Mr. Strauss: That is another question.

Horticultural Imports

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the President of the Board of Trade for a statement indicating in tabular form the imports of horticultural products to be allowed into this country in 1953; and the dates of individual quotas and the countries from which such produce will be imported.

Mr. Mackeson: A statement is being prepared and will be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as possible. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

Mr. Howard: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it will help us if this statement is prepared as soon as possible as it is urgently needed by those in the horticultural industry?

Mr. Mackeson: Certainly, Sir. The only reason I am not putting it in the OFFICIAL REPORT is that it is rather lengthy.

Women's Dresses and Piece Goods

Mr. Orbach: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of imports of fashion textiles from dollar sources in 12 months to the last available date.

Mr. Mackeson: The words "fashion textiles" used in the hon. Member's Question have no precise definition. If the hon. Member has in mind women's dresses, imports under this heading from the dollar area recorded during the 12 months ended 31st October, 1952. amounted to £195,200.

Mr. Orbach: The Minister should be perfectly well aware of what I mean when I say "fashion textiles," because his office telephoned me and asked me what were the specific textiles which I wanted under that heading and I gave them the information. I want to know the dresses, mantles and piece goods which are imported from the United States or other dollar areas to this country. Does the hon. Gentleman think it necessary to spend on such production even a single dollar in view of our balance of payments problem?

Mr. Mackeson: The hon. Member had better ask his own Front Bench. I am not prepared to abolish the token imports scheme with Canada and America.

Mr. Orbach: I should be quite prepared to ask my own Front Bench if the hon. Gentleman and his friends would vacate the Government Front Bench in their favour.

New Factories

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of factories completed in England in the years 1950, 1951 and 1952 to date; and the number of these which were erected in Lancashire.

Mr. H. Strauss: As the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hale: Really, I have asked for three figures, and three other figures: six in all. They are very important to Lancashire. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how many factories have been built in England in 1950, 1951


and 1952, and how many of those were built in Lancashire? He can do that in six words.

Mr. Strauss: It was precisely because I knew these matters were of interest to the hon. Member that I put in the table many figures which, I thought, he would like to have. Perhaps—

Mr. Hale: I want six now.

Mr. Strauss: I feel it would be quite unfair to other hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—if I were not to use the method of issuing a table in answering the Question, for that method is used, and used rightly, to give all sorts of details, but this may, I hope, help the hon. Member. The proportion of new building in Lancashire to that in the rest of the country has been in 1951, and so far in 1952, over 18 per cent., and Lancashire contains 14 per cent. of the insured population.

Mr. Hale: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that he could have given us those figures in half a minute

NEW FACTORIES AND EXTENSION TO EXISTING FACTORIES COMPLETED IN 1950, 1951 AND 1952


(Projects exceeding 5,000 square feet)



England
Lancashire



Period
Number
Area
Number
Area
Projects completed in Lancashire as a percentage of factory building in England (by area)




Million square feet

Million square feet
Per cent.


1950
845
19·7
125
2·6
13·5


1951
937
17·6
133
3·2
18·2


1952 to 30th September
626
10·4
94
1·8
18·1


Total: 1st January, 1950 to 30th September, 1952
2,408
47·7
352
7·6
16·0

NOTE: The figures given are subject to amendment in the light of information received after 30th November, 1952.

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new factory buildings under construction in the Development Areas at the latest available date; and the number on the corresponding date last year.

Mr. H. Strauss: The information is only available for buildings over 5,000 sq. ft. The total number of these under construction in the Development Areas

instead of spending four valuable minutes of the time of the House saying he would not give them? Is he really so ashamed of the figures that he will not give them? Or is it his desire to treat the House with contempt? Does he know that by refusing to give those figures we all know he is seeking to delay discussion of them over the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Strauss: There is not the slightest foundation for a single one of the allegations, and I am quite certain that when the hon. Member has studied the table he will, with his usual generosity, thank me for giving figures that, I know, he wishes to have.

Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. If it appears to be the opinion of this House that the information sought for in this Question is sufficiently important to warrant extra time being spent upon it, have we any right, Mr. Speaker, to insist that the Minister should give those figures?

Mr. Speaker: There is no right.

The following is the answer:

(both new factories and extensions) was 270 at the 31st October, 1952, and 314 a year earlier, but the area under construction was nearly 4 million sq. ft. more this year than last.

Mr. Willey: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as far as the Development Area with which I am concerned is affected, we are very disappointed at the lack of progress in new


building schemes? Will he break down the figures into new factories and extensions, because we are convinced in the North-East that we should have more new factories, and we are not getting them?

Mr. Hale: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also tell us why he can give figures to one of his hon. Friends and refuse them to me?

Miss Ward: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in order in asking that question when you, Mr. Speaker, have not called him?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member rather anticipated my decision to call him.

Mr. Strauss: I would assure the hon. Member that if I had had a table giving him only three or two figures I certainly should have given it in an oral answer.

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation giving powers to make financial assistance in connection with the erection of factories in areas outside Development Areas where unemployment is being aggravated by lack of modern factory space.

Mr. H. Strauss: I can hold out no prospect of legislation on the lines suggested.

Mr. Hale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is growing unemployment in many export industries in Lancashire; that in the county borough of Oldham unemployment has gone up from 180 in November last, half of whom were disabled, to over 3,000; that one of the difficulties is the complete absence of modern factories; and that unless and until Her Majesty's Government introduce the necessary powers there will be the same drift from the north to the south that we had to face in the years of Tory misrule before the war?

Mr. Strauss: The suggestion in the Question is really a suggestion for a major change in the Distribution of Industry Acts. I cannot hold out hope of legislation on those lines.

Import Restrictions

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in any further relaxa-

tion of controls on imports into the United Kingdom, he will give priority to food rather than manufactured goods.

Mr. Mackeson: No, Sir. I do not think it is practicable to lay down any general order of priority such as the right hon. Member suggests. We shall endeavour to maintain a reasonable balance between the requirements of our own economy and the economic and commercial interests of the countries which normally trade with us.

Mr. Jay: As the Government made the main cut a year ago in foodstuffs, why do they now give so much higher priority to goods like decorated pottery and textiles? Will they not consider the home consumer as well as the foreign producer?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir, all these considerations are borne in mind.

Furniture (Standards)

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure the maintenance of furniture standards when the Utility Furniture (Marking and Supply) (Revocation) Order, 1952, comes into operation.

Mr. Awbery: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Utility furniture scheme gave the public an assurance of a certain standard of quality and, as the scheme is to be discontinued, what steps he is taking to ensure that purchasers will not have shoddy furniture sold to them as was so common before the scheme started.

Mr. H. Strauss: In pursuance of the policy announced by my right hon. Friend on 13th March during the Budget Debate, the British Standards Institution, in co-operation with the Furniture Development Council and the industry, is preparing British Standards for furniture. I would add that the Utility Furniture (Supply) Order, 1952, protects the utility mark, and ample stocks of furniture to which the utility mark was lawfully applied before 15th December are still available in the shops.

Mr. Albu: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the trade considers this an extremely experimental scheme, and that a standard for furniture, which is still being worked out by the Furniture Development Council, cannot possibly be agreed to in a period of less than 12


months, within which time, of course, the Utility furniture to which he has referred will have been exhausted? May I ask whether it was at the pressure of his Department that the British Standards Institution issued to the Press the highly misleading statement that gave the impression that in the interim period there would be standards for furniture when the D scheme was introduced?

Mr. Strauss: In answer to the last part of the question, the British Standards Institution issued its statement, as it is entitled to do, without being urged to do so by the Board. On the time that will be taken before the standards, or most of them, are effectively in use. I take a considerably more optimistic view than the hon. Member, and so, I think, does the industry.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the standard quality of furniture ceased yesterday and that a shoddy standard of furniture starts today, and that the withdrawal of this Order has been opposed by employers, manufacturers, and by the trades unions, and that the voluntary standard of the quality is not sufficient? Will he do something more now to see that people are guaranteed that they get the proper quality of furniture for which they pay?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member had listened to the conclusion of my reply he would have known that the Utility mark is still protected. I disagree with him entirely that, as a result of the action taken, the shops are going to be filled with shoddy goods. I hope and believe that the industry will do what it has undertaken to do, and I see no reason to insult it.

Fruit Pulp

Mr. Bullard: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the imports of fruit pulp, of varieties that compete directly with home-grown produce, in the year ended 30th June, 1952; and to what value he anticipates similar pulp will be imported in the year ending 30th June, 1953.

Mr. Mackeson: It is estimated that imports of fruit pulp of varieties which compete directly with home-grown produce from all sources during the year ended

30th June, 1952, amounted to about £2 million. I cannot estimate the value of imports of similar pulp in the year ending 30th June, 1953.

Anglo-Argentine Negotiations

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade to state in detail the matters that have been, and are now, under discussion with Argentina concerning a new trade agreement; how many meetings have been held; when the discussions first commenced; and how the progress on these talks compares with similar discussions last year.

Mr. Mackeson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 9th December to the Question asked by the right hon. Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay).

Mr. Lewis: That is a complete evasion of the Question, because the answer to that Question made no reference to the points asked for in this Question. I am asking what matters have been and are now under discussion; how many meetings have been held, and when the discussions first commenced. None of those questions is answered in the previous answer which the hon. Member mentioned. Can I ask him now whether he will answer the Question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Mackeson: The answer is in the negative.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Food told me yesterday that he was satisfied with the way these negotiations were proceeding? Can I ask him whether the President of the Board of Trade shares that view?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir, but I should not like to go further—and I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House will understand this—than to say that they are proceeding in a very amicable manner.

Mr. Willey: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House why the House should not be informed when these discussions were first commenced and how many meetings have been held?

Mr. Mackeson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are formal and informal meetings in negotiations of this sort.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that I did see you privately concerning the principle of this matter. When a Minister says that he will answer a Question and then, as in this case, goes on to evade an answer to the Question, what right and what means and what methods has a Member of raising, either on the Floor of the House or with you, the attempt of the Minister completely to evade answering the Question?

Mr. Speaker: I can only repeat the advice I gave the hon. Gentleman on that occasion, which was that if an hon. Member is dissatisfied with the particularity of the reply he receives he is quite in order in putting down another Question so as to elicit information which has not already been given.

Mr. Lewis: If a Member puts down a Question which the Minister says he will answer but then completely evades it and makes no attempt to answer it and the Member keeps putting down that Question, what means has the Member of getting the Minister to answer it?

Mr. Speaker: I should imagine that perseverance of that character will generally be rewarded, but I have no power to compel a Minister to answer a Question.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely there must be some way in which the House can protect itself, or in which you can protect it, from being treated by Ministers with studied contempt?

Mr. Speaker: In the case of studied contempt, I think I should.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the lack of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Yugoslavia (Lord Strabolgi's Visit)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made for Lord Strabolgi to represent the interests of Her Majesty's Government in connection with commercial and trading matters in Yugoslavia.

Major Beamish: asked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the special mission undertaken by Lord Strabolgi on behalf of his Department during his recent visit to Yugoslavia.

Mr. Mackeson: No such arrangement was made. Lord Strabolgi has returned from Yugoslavia and has informed me that he made it quite clear in reply to Press inquiries that his visit was unofficial.

Mr. Wigg: Is the hon. Member aware that this Question was put on the Order Paper as the result of a report which appeared in the "Daily Mail," which was malicious and fictitious; and that, indeed, the Press reporter, Mr. Williams, told Lady Strabolgi at the airport that he was very sorry indeed that he had to send the report through, but his paper wanted something sensational?

Mr. Mackeson: I do not feel obliged to comment on that Press report, but I should like to make it quite clear that I should be happy to see the noble Lord and to hear anything he has to tell me about trade with any foreign country.

Anti-biotics (Exports to China)

Mr. Bing: asked the President of the Board of Trade to state the reason why streptomycin is included among the list of goods of strategic importance whose export to China is prohibited.

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that West German firms are exporting to China anti-biotics and sulpha drugs for which his Department will not give a licence for export to China to British manufacturers; and whether, in the circumstances, he will remove anti-biotics and sulpha drugs from the list of strategic supplies which are banned as exports to China.

Mr. Mackeson: The export to China of anti-biotics, including streptomycin and sulpha drugs, is not prohibited, but it is limited to normal civilian requirements. I am aware of the exports of these drugs to China from Western Germany and other European countries. The matter is under active discussion with the Governments of these countries.

Mr. Bing: Would the hon. Gentleman say what military value streptomycin has; and in these circumstances, for what purposes is it proposed to restrict it when there is a demand for it, and when an order has been placed?

Mr. Mackeson: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman had better put that down and I will have a look at it.

Mr. Bing: But I have put it down.

Mr. Mackeson: I wish to make it clear that we are not restricting the use of these drugs for civilians in China.

Dr. Stross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the total order to be placed was in the region of £2 million sterling in value, that the first portion of £500,000 has gone to Western Germany and been lost to us; and in view of the fact that he says there is not an embargo, that it is not forbidden, does he not think it is scandalous that our reputable firms should lose an opportunity of doing the type of trade which we should all be proud of doing, letting it go instead to other countries?

Mr. Mackeson: I am looking into this matter very carefully.

Mr. Tilney: Will my hon. Friend take steps to urge on our N.A.T.O. allies a common policy in this matter?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mikardo: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, while he is having an alleged look into this matter and having alleged discussions with our N.A.T.O. allies, there is growing unemployment amongst people working in the factories producing these drugs in this country; and what is the sense in creating unemployment amongst British workers to give employment to workers of other countries when China gets the stuff all the same?

Mr. Mackeson: The manner in which the various N.A.T.O. countries carry out their duties differs. This country has the highest standard of all.

Sugar Supplies (Eastern Europe)

Mr. Bing: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the exportable surplus of sugar likely to be available in the coming year from East Germany and Poland, he will initiate negotiations for the expansion of trade with these countries so as to obtain additional supplies of sugar from non-dollar sources.

Mr. Mackeson: I see no necessity to undertake special negotiations for the purchase of sugar from East Germany or Poland.

Mr. Bing: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement of Lord Lyle, the Chairman of Tate & Lyle, which appeared on 3rd December in the "Financial Times," in which Lord Lyle said that were imports of 200,000 tons of sugar to be obtained from Eastern Germany and Poland it would be possible to do away with the sugar ration and obtain all our sugar from non-dollar sources?

Mr. Mackeson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that Question to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food.

Factory Buildings, Lancashire (Use)

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that existing factory buildings in Lancashire are being sold subject to a limitation that they be used for storage purpose only; and whether he will introduce legislation to deal with this.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am informed that recently one cotton spinning mill in Lancashire was sold by auction subject to this condition. The answer to the second part of the Question is: No, Sir.

Mr. Hale: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean he is going to wait until a whole lot of cotton mills have been sold subject to these conditions limiting their use to storage when they ought to be used for industrial employment; and will he tell us why he is not prepared to do anything about it? Is it not a disgraceful thing, in view of the shortage of factory space, that a limitation of this kind should be placed on existing factory space?

Mr. Strauss: As far as I know, this is an isolated case. If there are other cases I hope the hon. Gentleman will bring them to my notice. According to my information this is a quite isolated case. It certainly remains the intention of Her Majesty's Government to encourage industrialists to make use of any suitable existing premises that are available.

Manilla Rope

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade why a licence to export to China 20,000 feet of manilla rope for slings was refused by his Department.

Mr. Mackeson: Manilla rope is of strategic importance and it is contrary to the policy of Her Majesty's Government to permit such exports to China at present.

Mr. Bottomley: Has the President of the Board of Trade considered inviting a trade mission from China to talk about ways of developing trade between our two countries?

Mr. Mackeson: That is a different question.

U.N.E.S.C.O. Agreement (Ratification)

Colonel J. H. Harrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many countries have ratified the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's Agreement of 2nd November, 1950; and which those countries are.

Mr. Mackeson: Thirteen countries have ratified or acceded to the Agreement. These are Ceylon, Egypt, Israel, Monaco, Pakistan, Laos, Viet-Nam, Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, Yugoslavia, Cuba and Sweden.

Colonel Harrison: In view of this poor response, does my hon. Friend think that it is worth while this country ratifying it?

Cotton Yarns (Argentina Imports)

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that only £23,973 value of cotton yarns was accepted for import into the Argentine against a quota of £1,500,000 agreed under the Anglo-Argentina Trade Agreement for the year 1951–52; whether a quota has yet been agreed for 1952–53; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that agreements made are implemented.

Mr. Mackeson: The figure of £1½ million was an estimate by the Argentine Government of likely requirements of cotton yarn; but import licences had been withheld owing, I understand, to shortage of sterling. As regards trade for 1952–53, negotiations are still proceeding and I should not think it desirable to discuss progress on particular matters.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Is my hon. Friend aware that although this country

is still the Argentine's second best customer, only 15 packages of United Kingdom cotton yarn were accepted from this country by Argentina during the first eight months of this year, as against 65,762 packages from other textile producing countries, and will he impress this point on the Argentine authorities?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Her Majesty's Government alone are the only Government satisfied with the way in which these negotiations are proceeding, and is he also aware that business and the public generally are thoroughly dissatisfied?

N.A.T.O. (COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, MEDITERRANEAN)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

46. CAPTAIN RYDER: To ask the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been reached by the North Atlantic Council concerning the command of Allied naval and air forces in the Mediterranean; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): May I, Mr. Speaker, answer Question No. 46, which has not been reached, having given you notice that I wish to make a statement on the subject?
I have learned that N.A.T.O. has approved a system of command for the Mediterranean which was formulated by the Military Committee.
The principal change is the establishment of a Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean. By agreement the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, will initially be a British Naval Officer, Admiral Mountbatten. His staff will include officers from all nations concerned. He will be directly subordinate and responsible to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
In time of war Commander-in-Chief. Mediterranean, will be responsible for the security of sea communications, the protection of shipping and convoys, the co-ordination of logistic support and the support of adjacent Commands. Other important responsibilities are the co-ordination of mine warfare, and submarine and anti-submarine operations.


For all these purposes his Command will include air as well as naval forces.
The duties of the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean. will include the co-ordination of the movements of all naval forces in the Mediterranean. Admiral Mountbatten will continue to be responsible to the British Chiefs of Staff for the security of our communications to the Middle East.
The heavy carriers, amphibious and support forces of the United States 6th Fleet will remain under the command of the Commander-in-Chief, South. The 6th Fleet, sometimes referred to as the striking force, is primarily a force organised for the support of land campaigns in Southern Europe.
The Mediterranean will be sub-divided into a number of areas for the exercise of functions of local or national nature. The several Area Commanders will be responsible to the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, for all allied tasks but will remain under their own national authorities for various tasks which are national in character. These areas will include the important French and Italian areas in the Western and Central Mediterranean. National coastal areas will be throughout a national responsibility.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not a fact that in the Atlantic Command British ships are under the command of the American Supreme Allied Commander, and why should not the right hon. Gentleman insist on the same arrangements for American ships in the Mediterranean to be under the command of the British Supreme Allied Commander; and is it not shameful that he should have agreed to an arrangement altogether much less than the arrangement which we have agreed on in the Atlantic?

The Prime Minister: I think that I will leave the hon. Gentleman, in regard to this important matter, which I think is very satisfactory, to rest on the word "shameful."

Captain Ryder: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? First, what will be the relationship between the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, and the projected Middle East Command, bearing in mind that the Mediterranean forms the principal means of access to the

Middle East and at present appears to come under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe? The second question is—

The Prime Minister: Let me answer one question at a time, please.
In the whole of this vast question there have been two material points to bear in mind. One was that we, with all our experience, should, so far as possible and under whatever form was agreed, be responsible for the reception end across the Atlantic Ocean, which we know so well. The second was that we should have effective control of the through communications in the Mediterranean, enabling us to discharge our responsibilities in the Middle East and also use in full integrity all the bases and forces which we have in that sea. This has been achieved, like the other, though not in the form we may any of us completely desire, but I think that the two essentials have been effectively secured, and I think that it would be a great pity if it should not be an occasion where there should be general agreement between both sides of the House.

Mr. Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you say under what circumstances the representatives on the Government Front Bench are entitled to arrogate to themselves your responsibilities and your entitlements and tell one of their own Members to sit down?

Mr. Speaker: I think that a Minister is quite entitled, and always has been in my recollection, when he gets a string of questions fired at him by way of supplementaries, to ask for one question to be put at a time. There is nothing wrong in that.

Mr. Porter: Further to that point of order. I am not suggesting that it is a question of one or two questions. You are entitled, Sir, to suggest that to him, and not Members of the Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: Sometimes a string of questions can be answered together quite easily; at other times it is difficult.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can recall that, about two years ago, when we were considering this matter in the House, and we were on that side and he was on this side, he was in favour of an American


admiral being in control of the Mediterranean? Can he recall the incident that occurred at that time, and is he now satisfied that the scheme formulated by the late Government, with the exception of the British admiral coming under the control of the Supreme Commander, General Ridgway—on that occasion it was General Eisenhower—and which has now been accepted, is satisfactory? Would he say why he has changed his mind on this subject, and why he has now come to the view that we expressed at that time?

The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman announced that the Supreme Command in the Atlantic should go to an American admiral, I thought it a pity, because I thought that we knew most about the reception end, as I have called it. I would have preferred at that time to have had the Supreme Command in the Atlantic for Britain, and would have welcomed the Americans in the Mediterranean, because it was very desirable that they should intervene in force and with a fleet there. However, the right hon. Gentleman had his way. When I went to Washington, it was already settled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. I had to deal with a matter which had been effectively decided, but arrangements were made then, which I described in the House in as much detail as was possible, which did secure the effective control of the reception end of the Atlantic, and that we have now. That was all as a result of modifications agreed to then.
Meanwhile time has passed, and two years is a long time in this world. Meanwhile the United States, I am delighted to say, have sent a powerful fleet into the Mediterranean. It is very remarkable that in spite of that they should still have been willing to accord to us—they and the other Powers concerned—what is undoubtedly the Mediterranean Command so that we have, as I have tried to point out, not only effective control of the reception end of the Atlantic but responsibility for the through routes in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentelman is aware that, apart from certain complications in this scheme that require to be explained away and no doubt will be explained in the course

of subsequent debates, we are satisfied with the appointment of a British admiral in the Mediterranean? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, as regards the reception end, the Iberian end, we never accepted the American view and always resisted their claim to control it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of that. When I talk of the reception end, I am not speaking only of the Iberian sector. I am speaking also of the entire Western approaches to the English Channel and all of the spheres which are open in the North.

Mr. Shinwell: We never gave those away.

The Prime Minister: With regard to all of this, very practical working arrangements have been made which satisfy the dignity of the nations concerned and, which is far more important, will enable the Admiralty to make their contribution as effectively as before.

Captain Ryder: What is to be the relationship between the Commander of the American 6th Fleet and the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, who both look to the same Supreme Commander and work in adjacent areas? What is to be their relationship in the event of combined operations?

The Prime Minister: I expect they will help each other, but I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend reads the answer, he will see that that is effectively provided for.

Mr. John Hynd: Is the Prime Minister aware that this was already announced in the Sunday Press at the beginning of this week? In those circumstances, can he explain why he declined to make a statement yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I think that my time-table ought to start from the formal decisions of N.A.T.O. rather than from casual paragraphs in the Sunday newspapers.

Brigadier Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction which his statement will give both in the country and in the Royal Navy?

PRIVATE HOUSE-BUILDING (RELAXATION OF CONTROLS)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

104. Mr. STEWARD: To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government when it is his intention to revert to pre-war practice and allow all those able and willing to get on with the building of houses for the people.

120. Mr. GOWER: To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he will take to increase the volume of the building of houses for private purchasers.

124. Mr. MCADDEN: To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the increase in the number of houses built by local authorities for letting, he will consider relaxing the present system of licensing.

128. Mr. HARMAR NICHOLLS: To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government if it is his intention to stimulate the building of houses for sale.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission I will answer Questions Nos. 104, 120, 124 and 128.
The success of the Government's housing policy in terms of houses completed, started, and under construction in 1952, makes possible a further step forward. The Government have always been anxious for private enterprise to supplement and support building by the local authorities. Accordingly, from 1st January, 1953, it is intended to allow any individual to build a house subject to planning permission and byelaw consent so long as it is of not more than 1,000 square feet and does not consume more than the appropriate quantity of softwood timber.
Subject to the same conditions, builders will be permitted to build up to 12 houses at a time. Local authorities are being asked to issue licences automatically to both these classes of applicant. Arrangements are being made, through the regional officers, to secure that the flow of private house-building does not prejudice the claim of houses for letting on the labour and materials available.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? The first is whether he is also speaking for the Secretary of State for Scotland. Secondly, is the real reason for the statement that he has made the fact that in some districts 90 per cent. of the licences issued for private house-building have been returned?

Mr. Macmillan: Apart from the question of conditions in Scotland—as the right hon. Gentleman knows they are not precisely the same—broadly speaking, there will be the same situation in Scotland, and the Scottish Office are represented and will make a statement if required. In regard to his second question, the figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave is not correct. The reason we are making this step forward is that the building of houses for letting has so far exceeded anticipations and the provision for the future that we are able to make this addition today.

Mr. Steward: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an estimate for the United Kingdom for the current year of the number of houses built for letting and sale respectively?

Mr. Macmillan: We have, of course, only reached 11 months, but I think that on the basis of the 11 months the completions for this year will probably be of the order of 235,000 against 195,000 in 1951. With regard to houses for letting, I hope that there will be built something of the order of 202,000, that is, an increase of 29,000 over the year 1951.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure which he has mentioned—235,000—was precisely the figure which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and myself calculated we could build in 1952?

Mr. Macmillan: Then I wish I could confidently ask the right hon. Gentleman to share my pleasure.

Mr. Gower: While thanking the Minister for this dynamic news, may I ask whether he could give an estimate of the number of houses which are actually now under construction and the comparable figure for this time last year?

Mr. Macmillan: At the moment there are about 275,000 houses under construction and therefore hon. Members will perhaps draw their own conclusions as to


the likelihood of our having a good result next year if the weather is not too unfavourable.

Miss Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, which is a typical industrial constituency, not a single citizen whose needs were anything like justified was prevented from building a house under the four-to-one rule? Is he aware that the statement he has made constitutes a backward and not a forward step, because it once more asserts the Tory policy that hard-working miners and agricultural workers must stand back while people whose needs are less urgent are served?

Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry that good news causes such trouble. If the hon. Lady is right in saying that nobody wishes to build a house on private account in her constituency, then, of course, she and her constituents will be neither injured nor helped by my statement.

Miss Lee: On a point of order. I think that I made a plain statement regarding constituents of mine who have built private houses for themselves. I did not say that they had been prevented from doing so. I said that they had been able to build under the four-to-one rule. It is quite unworthy of the Minister to try to dodge the essential part of my statement, which was that hard-working miners and agricultural workers and those who cannot afford to buy houses are being pushed back.

Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry. I had no intention of misrepresenting the hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did."]—because her argument supported me. She said that everybody who wanted to build a house in her constituency could have done so under the one-to-four rule. We have had the one-to-four rule, the one-to-one rule and now we have the complete freedom rule, so exactly the same conditions exist. But what is new is that we shall build 30,000 more houses to let this year than were built by the last Administration, and next year we shall build another 30,000 on top of that.

Mr. H. Morrison: Despite this excited atmosphere of jubilation, may I put this consideration to the right hon. Gentleman? Are we to understand that there is now complete freedom for local authorities or private enterprise to build as

many houses as they like? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this may well damage the quota of houses that can be built by local authorities for letting, and secondly, is this lifting of all control on house building something which may prejudice the building of factories which are vital for our economic recovery and the building and repairing of hospitals and schools?

Mr. Macmillan: These are very fair points, and it is a little difficult in a short reply to deal with all of them. It is not proposed to abolish the licensing system. It is proposed to keep the licensing system, because we must control timber and other precious materials. What we propose to do is to exercise control through the regional system as, indeed, I have done during this year. We have abandoned broadly the yearly allocation. We have worked on an instalment to each region according to the labour and materials available. Through that system we shall be able to protect to the full the council programme upon which we must rely for by far the greatest proportion of the contribution. We shall see that the licensing of the private flow is kept in such a way that each region will work harmoniously within the general plan.

Mr. Morrison: But did not the right hon. Gentleman refer to the automatic granting of licences, and, in view of what he has just said, may we take it that a local authority is free to build as many houses as it likes and attract the appropriate Government grant?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. As I said, it is difficult to answer this in a short statement, but the last sentence of my reply was that these arrangements are being made through the regional officers to insure that the flow of private house building does not prejudice the claim on labour and materials available for the construction of houses for letting. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I think it will be found we shall do that all right.

Captain Duncan: In view of the statement of my right hon. Friend about England and Wales and the fact that he said a statement would be made, if necessary, about Scotland. will you, Mr. Speaker, allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement dealing with the question in Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice of such a statement.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Is the Minister aware that all who wish to help in meeting the housing shortage will find his announcement both helpful and timely? To meet any misapprehension, can he tell us in more detail what will be the position of houses of more than 1,000 square feet?

Mr. Macmillan: Applications for licences to build houses between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet will be considered on their merits by the local authority.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that the Economic Commission for Europe stated that the United Kingdom Government are only building more houses at the expense of factories, schools and hospitals; and that brings misery to millions of people?

Mr. Macmillan: Although I was a very early member of the European Movement, I am the responsible Minister in the British Government for housing and I do not accept all the statements that are made by commissions which represent not only Western Europe but Europe from the other side of the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to the point of order submitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), and in view of the fact that the Minister said that the Secretary of State for Scotland could tell us the position in Scotland, are we not entitled to hear a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): To clear up any misunderstanding, may I say that a statement was issued in Scotland on 29th September dealing with this very matter? I have no statement to make at the moment, because I do not see any necessity to be dragged along by the coat tails by England.

Mr. Rankin: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—

Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of order.

Mr. Rankin: Then this is a new point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The question raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was not a point of order.

Mr. Rankin: May I raise a point of order? We have heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland that because a statement was issued to the Press on a certain date, that enables him to evade his duties as a responsible Minister in this House. I want to know whether that action is in order?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order.

Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in none of the comments or questions which we have had from the other side of the House today has there been one word of congratulation upon this great progress?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am sorry that my rising should cause the Prime Minister to sit there with a most unpleasant expression on his face. I am glad it is improving. I have caused him to smile, which is all to the good. May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the importance of the statement that has been made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the fact that he was less fluent when he got to some of the later questions than he was earlier on, and in view of the possible disastrous consequences of this new policy to slum clearance and the bombed areas, he will be good enough to postpone the Committee stage of the Transport Bill, either tomorrow or on Thursday, and let us have a debate on this important subject?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I am afraid I have already announced the business up to the Christmas Recess.

SERVICE PENSION INCREASES WIDOWS AND CHILDREN)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

170. SIR E. KEELING: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will now make a statement about the pensions of the widows of officers of Her Majesty's Forces.

171. DR. BENNETT: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will now consider increasing the pensions for Service widows.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement in reply to Questions Nos. 170 and 171.
I am now able to announce the results of the review of awards to widows and children of officers and other ranks in the Services which, as I told the House on 19th November, the Government have been engaged upon. The announcement relates to ordinary pensions and not to pensions paid to dependants of those whose death was attributable to service.
As the House knows, the basic rates and conditions of award have, for the most part, been unchanged for some 100 years, and the position of these beneficiaries is therefore radically different from that of other State pensioners. The criticisms which have been made by members of all parties and by the public in general have been directed to three main points: That the awards are inadequate; that proper awards were not made to widows and dependants of other ranks of very long service; and that the conditions of award are unfair and out-of-date. The scheme which I am now announcing on behalf of the Government does what is possible to meet these points.
First, as regards rates of award. These have been increased throughout. At present, for example, the basic rate of pensions for the widow of a captain in the Army is £50 a year, or £90 a year if the widow is entitled to increases under the Pensions Increase schemes. In future the rate will be £110 per annum. For a

lieutenant-colonel's widow, the present basic rate is £90 per annum or £140 with pension increases. The future rate will be £180 per annum. For a lieutenant-general's widow the rate will be increased from £187 10s. or £252 including pension increases, to £350 per annum. The new rates will not qualify for increases under the existing Pensions (Increase) Acts.
As regards other ranks, the present scheme is restricted to the widows of warrant officers, Class I, in the Army, and warrant officers in the R.A.F. In future, the widows and children of other ranks will be eligible, provided the men in question have completed certain specified periods of long service. For example, the widow of a warrant officer, Class II, with 22 years' service, will receive 12s. 6d. a week, rising to £1 a week for 37 years' service, and the widow of a sergeant of 27 years' service will receive 10s. a week, rising to 15s. a week for 37 years' service. The new rate of allowance for officers' children will be £32 a year, compared with the old rate of £16, which, with pensions increase, is now £22. For the children of long-service other ranks covered by the scheme, the rate will be 3s. 6d. a week, and can be drawn in addition to family allowances.
These ordinary widows' and children"s pensions are payable in addition to any entitlement under the National Insurance Acts. These improved rates will apply to all widows and dependants at present receiving benefits under the current scheme, regardless of the date of retirement of the husband. In the case of benefits arising from the extension of the scheme to other ranks of long service, payments will be made to the dependants of those who have served since 31st August, 1950. The increased rates will in all cases be payable from 1st December, 1952.
There is one further benefit of some importance which I should mention. cases where a regular officer or other rank who would have been entitled to a terminal grant under the 1950 scheme dies during his service, his widow, whether or not she is eligible for a pension, will be entitled to the gratuity which he would have received had he been invalided at the date of his death, though account will be taken of any post-mortem allowances which she may have received. These gratuities will be paid to surviving


widows in all eligible cases where death has occurred during service since 1st September, 1950.
I now turn to the conditions of award. The main changes are as follows. The means test will be abolished. The conditions that the officer must not be more than 25 years older than his wife and not over 60 at the time of marriage will also be abolished and, subject to certain safeguards, a wife who married a husband within a year of his death will also be eligible. Cases will also be admitted where an officer who marries after retirement is subsequently re-employed for certain minimum periods. Cases which have hitherto been excluded under all these restrictive rules will be reviewed.
The present scheme is on the noncontributory principle which has obtained for the ordinary pensions scheme for the Services for over 100 years. When a widows' and dependants' scheme for the Civil Service was introduced in 1948, the Government of the day announced that it proposed to work out a similar scheme for the Services. Much consideration was given to such a scheme both by the late and by the present Government. A scheme was in fact prepared some two years ago, and the opinion of a cross-section of all three Services in all ranks was taken upon it; but in spite of the earnest consideration that had been given to it, the scheme proved unacceptable to the Services.
I hope the announcement of the Government's intentions will be generally welcomed in the House as evidence of the Government's desire to help those widows and children of men in the Forces who are still receiving pensions based on the rates fixed, in the main, a century ago. Furthermore, by thus improving the conditions of service of regular officers and other ranks we shall help recruiting and encourage long-service engagements. Full details of the scheme will be issued in a White Paper, which will be available when Parliament meets after the Christmas Recess.

Sir E. Keeling: While we should like time to consider the statement, and may refer to the matter again in the Adjournment debate on Friday which deals mainly with retired pay, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that this new code, for which I thank him, is regarded by many of us as a notable advance towards justice to these widows and children, who have been so long neglected, including the widows and children of sergeants who, before, got nothing at all?

Mr. Birch: I hope that the announcement is not altogether unseasonable.

Mr. H. Morrison: As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this matter had been under consideration by the previous Government at the time we left office, and I think the House will generally welcome the statement. Obviously, we must postpone final judgment until we have seen the White Paper and, of course, have studied the somewhat lengthy statement of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We are to debate this subject on the Adjournment Motion on Friday, and as we are so much behind time I hope the House will now pass on to the next business.

BILL PRESENTED

HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to extend the power of the Secretary of State under section seven of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, to authorise the undertaking by certain local and harbour authorities of operations in connection with marine works;" presented by Mr. Grimond; supported by Mr. M. MacMillan, Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton, Major McCallum, Mr. John MacLeod and Sir David Robertson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd January, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

ACCOMMODATION AGENCIES

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the taking of certain commissions in dealings with persons seeking houses or flats to let and the unauthorised advertisement for letting of houses and flats.
The purpose of this Bill is to deal more effectively than is possible today under the existing law with certain persons who are conducting what appears to be a very unwholesome type of estate agency business. It seems that in recent years there have sprung into existence a number of these letting agencies or, as they call themselves, "accommodation agencies," which are conducted upon lines which in fact amount to a fraud upon those people who are induced to deal with them.
These agencies invite people who are searching for houses or flats to register their requirements with them, and in return they promise to supply lists of vacant accommodation. First, before anything is done, as a condition of registration, a fee is payable. The fee may amount to only a few shillings or it may be as much as two, three or even five guineas. This fee is payable before any service is performed for the applicant, and it is from these fees that the agencies obtain their remuneration. I am told that there are agencies which have been taking as much as £600 a week in registration fees. The applicant is then supplied with a list of premises which are said to be vacant.
In many of the cases to which my attention has been called, it is a condition of the tenant being accepted that he should pay a substantial sum, usually far beyond his means, for furniture or fittings, or even for decorations. Then, in many cases, when the applicant calls at the address which has been given to him he finds that the accommodation is no longer available. What is more significant is that the landlord is often completely unaware even of the existence of the agent. In fact he has never entrusted the agent with the task of finding him a tenant at all. It is clear that the address has been obtained from the advertisement columns of the local paper, or from a shop window

where these things are posted, or from some other source.
The House will appreciate that no respectable or reputable estate agent or house agent conducts his business on these lines. Normally he acts for the landlord, and he charges no fee until the service of finding a tenant or purchaser has been performed. I am satisfied that fraud and dishonesty are almost inevitable where an, agency is conducted upon the lines which I have described.
Accordingly, this Bill will make it unlawful to accept money merely for registering the name and requirements of a person seeking the tenancy of a house or flat. It will make it unlawful to accept money in consideration of supplying persons with the addresses or particulars of houses to let. It will further make it unlawful to advertise a house to let without the authority of the landlord or his agent.
Some months ago I raised these matters in an Adjournment debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government then issued a very firm warning to these people that in cases where it was possible to prove fraud, proceedings would be taken against them. I was very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that and, indeed, I see from today's papers that he appears to have been as good as his word. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that owing to the difficulties of proving fraud, of which some of my hon. and learned Friends will be very well acquainted, only a very limited number of cases are likely to be brought within the law unless the law is strengthened, as this Bill aims at strengthening it. Many of these gentlemen are very well acquainted with the law of fraud and they take very good care to keep on the safe side.
After the debate last April, I received a great number of letters from people in all parts of the country—far more, I am afraid, than I was able to acknowledge. They have given me a very illuminating insight into the methods of these gentlemen. What is more important is that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken to me of what has befallen their constituents at the hands of these agents. There is no doubt in my mind that these agencies have been trading on the distress and misery under which so many unhappy families are still unfortunately suffering. What married woman with her husband, and perhaps


children, all living in one room, with inadequate sanitary accommodation, would not gladly pay two guineas or five guineas or a great deal more to be put on somebody's "priority" list for a flat? I am tempted to read one letter—a very short letter, from a lady who wrote to me from Birmingham last October. This is what she said:
I am a woman van driver and had just got enough money to buy a pair of winter slacks and shoes when I saw the enclosed advertisement. I know these people want gaoling, but had it been £30 and I had got it, I would do it to get my girl a place to live.
That is the sort of letter I have received from these unfortunate people.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that, under the Standing Order, speeches should be very short in seeking permission to introduce the Bill.

Sir G. Hutchinson: I hope to conclude within the appropriate limit. I know of no opposition to this Bill and, indeed, I have enjoyed the help and encouragement of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I have the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). I am very grateful to them for their help.
I am convinced that we are here confronted with a deliberate and calculated fraud which it is the duty of Parliament to bring to an end at the earliest possible moment. I believe this Bill will effectively accomplish that purpose and I hope the House will now give me leave to introduce it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson, Mr. H. Brooke, Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper, Sir Edward Keeling, Mr. Robert Jenkins, Lieut.-Colonel Lipton, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Sparks, Wing Commander Bullus, Mr. Black and Mr. R. A. Allan.
ACCOMMODATION AGENCIES BILL
"to prohibit the taking of certain commissions in dealings with persons seeking houses or flats to let and the unauthorised advertisement for letting of houses and flats," presented accordingly, and read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd January, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

KENYA

4.15 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move,
That this House extends it sympathy to all races in Kenya in their present ordeal and reaffirms its support of lawful action to eliminate Mau Mau and suppress barbarous and violent crimes against both Africans and Europeans and to re-establish peace and order. It expresses its grave concern regarding those measures which involve the punishment of innocent people and which if continued may permanently embitter race relations. It regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to act upon the urgent recommendation, made by the then Governor of Kenya in November, 1951, for the appointment of a Royal Commission and the unaccountable delay by the Colonial Secretary since that date in proceeding with its appointment; and urges that, once appointed, the Commission should forthwith investigate the fundamental long-term problems in Kenya, including the land problem, and that it should be required to issue an interim report on these matters as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Government should take all practical measures to mitigate the most pressing hardships and frustrations of the African people, including the progressive elimination of the colour bar, co-operative farming the raising of wage standards, the reduction of the cost of living, extension of free education, the creation of new industries and provision of housing and the democratisation of local government. This House reaffirms its belief that co-operation and common action by all races is possible and necessary, and, to this end, welcomes the suggestions which have been made in Kenya for summoning a Round Table Conference of representatives of all communities.
This Motion is in the names of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, other of my right hon. Friends and myself. I would begin the debate, as I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House would wish it to begin and as the Motion begins, by extending to all the people of all races in Kenya our deepest sympathy in the ordeal through which they are passing. Many of them live in lonely places, under very great strain and under the constant threat, which has been their lot for some time, of violence and crime.
In the debates which, we have had on Kenya in recent weeks, we have realised, and I claim have lived up to the realisation, that it is our duty to speak with serious responsibility about these matters in view of the circumstances in the Colony. We have affirmed from the outset, as the Motion affirms now, our


support for all lawful action which is necessary to suppress violence and crime, to eliminate Mau Mau and to restore peace and order in the country.
But our responsibility does not end there. Kenya is a Colony. We are responsible for the country and for all its people. We have in Kenya, as in all Colonies, what is implicit in the relationship between a Colony and a mother country—a special responsibility for the weakest of its people. There is another aspect of events which take place in any of our Colonies now and which I beg the House to realise. Our administration of Colonies in these days has a certain background and setting which we have always to bear in mind. Our administration of the Colonies for which we have responsibility in these days is carried on with the eyes of the world upon us.
We belong to a multi-racial community and a multi-racial Commonwealth, and it is important for us to realise that among the independent members of our Commonwealth now, the people with different-coloured skins from ourselves are the majority of its citizens. They, too, are watching events in Africa and elsewhere. In addition, the eyes of the world are upon us, for has it not become increasingly recognised in the democratic world that the future of the world may very well be determined in Africa and Asia? We have reached the stage where, whatever contentions we may have—and many Governments have had contentions about the rights of the United Nations to discuss matters of this kind—it is becoming increasingly evident to us that it is impossible to keep questions of this kind from the discussions of the United Nations.
For all those reasons, whilst reaffirming our support for all lawful action to restore peace and order and to do all that is necessary to achieve that end, we have a responsibility to speak out, even to be disturbed, about what is taking place. And we have become disturbed about some of the things that are being done in Kenya. We are also disturbed about some of the things we think should be done and which are either not being done or not being done as rapidly as we believe the circumstances make necessary. That is why we have put this Motion on the Order Paper, that is why I have moved it, and that is why at the end of

the day we shall ask the House to support it in the Division Lobby.
We have recognised fully from the outset of this outbreak of violence that, faced with this situation, the authorities in Kenya had to be given emergency powers which for the time being set aside the normal process of law. When the Secretary of State made his first announcement in the House, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I affirmed that support. But we realised, too, that, as we stressed in those early debates, and as I stress now, as we have given the authorities in Kenya very wide powers, it is our duty, for we are the final arbiter, to ensure as far as we can that those extraordinary powers over the peoples in the Colony are wisely administered and that they are never abused.
We have become very concerned indeed about this problem. I realise, as do we all, that whatever is done is done in our name and with our approval, and that if this House of Commons is to fulfil its heavy responsibilities, it is essential that it should inform itself of what is taking place. Therefore, in the early beginnings of our discussions about the events in Kenya I made a suggestion to the Secretary of State, as the House will recall. I put it forward seriously. I put it forward as one who has had experience for a short time in the office which the right hon. Gentleman is now privileged to hold.
I put forward the suggestion that there should go to Kenya from this House an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament. I suggested that in our choice of hon. Members we should seek to use those in this House with knowledge and experience of the use of emergency powers in our own country, who could bring to bear upon the problems that arise in the use of wide powers of this kind, their experience and knowledge. That suggestion was put forward sincerely. I believe I carry not only my right hon. and hon. Friends with me but hon. Members in other parts of the House, if they would speak out. I am sure I carry people in every part of the nation with me in regretting that the Secretary of State turned down that suggestion.
I make the suggestion again, and I make it now because in our Motion we express our grave concern about some


of the measures that are now being put into operation in Kenya, in particular, about collective punishment. We have learned from our history that collective punishment can be a terrible boomerang. I beg this House to realise the setting and the circumstances in which collective action is being taken.
I put this factually because I wish the House to realise what it means. In the very nature of things, having regard to the status of Kenya as a Colony and the kind of administration we have, any form of punishment that is now administered is inflicted by one race upon another race. That makes it doubly essential that we should examine with great care what might be the consequences of this form of punishment upon Kenya and its people now and in the future.
I shall emphasise two of the consequences, though there are others. In putting down Mau Mau, as we must and as we shall, it is important that in the process we do not leave bitter memories behind. I have urged upon the Secretary of State from the outset that one of the essential things to secure in handling this problem all the time in everything we did was to make sure that this was a struggle by all the decent people of the races in Kenya against Mau Mau, and that it was the essence of wise leadership to take every conceivable step to prevent it becoming, or even to appear to become, a struggle of the whites against the blacks or of the blacks against the whites.
For this reason my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself urged upon the Secretary of State early on that every encouragement should be given to the responsible leaders of the Africans. We can put down Mau Mau, but we have to win the Africans. We can never win them unless we do so through their own leaders. In the first debate we had on 7th November, I called the attention of the Secretary of State and of the House to a courageous statement made by Mr. Odede, the new leader of the Kenya African Union. I asked the Government to send him a message of encouragement and to make it possible for him to meet his people in order to offer them an alternative leadership to take them away from the course of Mau Mau, with its terror and its violence, and to lead them along the constitutional path.
For many weeks the Africans heard no voices except the voices of the terrorists and the voices of Mau Mau. Five weeks went by before their representative in the Cabinet was invited or permitted to broadcast to his people. Incidentally, I use the word "Cabinet" for the Executive Council because it is the equivalent of our Cabinet and the Africans have their own member there. Indeed, it was my privilege, with the late Governor, to nominate Mr. Odede as a member to represent the Africans. Yet five weeks went by. How much better if he had been permitted to broadcast in the first few days. How much better if that had been followed, as I suggested realising all the difficulties, by enabling him to meet the people and to offer to them an alternative leadership.
Some of those responsible African leaders have paid with their lives for their loyalty to us. White people have done so, black people have done so. Some I knew. The loss of some is a grievous loss to Africa and to the African people and to the future of race relationships in Kenya. These men have shown by their loyalty—some by the sacrifice of their lives—that they are brave men, and I regret very much that their services were not and are not being more fully used in order to win the Africans away from Mau Mau to the better courses we can offer.
I put this to the House because I believe it is important: when we adopt matters of collective punishment, I want us to realise that we make it very difficult, is not impossible, for responsible African leaders to co-operate with the Government or to have authority and influence with their own people. If they become associated with the Government, and we in that way associate them with collective punishment, that will undermine their influence and make it impossible for them to win the Africans over now. Indeed, it may mean that it will be impossible for them to win the Africans over in the future.
I know that the Secretary of State for the Colonies and those responsible have a difficult task. I beg them to realise, for it is very important, that if what are regarded as punitive measures are taken, not against Mau Mau, but against the Kikuyu people as a whole, that makes the position of the responsible African leaders very difficult if not impossible.


I mention only one other consequence. It is that we fear that the measures so taken and applied will breed deep racial resentments that will go down as a bitter memory from the present generation of Africans to generations to come. Those are two of the consequences, and there are others. In this Motion we have expressed our grave concern lest measures of that kind embitter race relations and make much more difficult our task in future, for there can be only one task in Kenya worthy of our support, and that is that eventually, when these days are past and this terror has been put down, there should be built a multiracial society reaching out towards equality.
I hope that the Government will realise that I am speaking not only for myself but, I believe, for the majority of the people in this country when I say that we are deeply and gravely concerned about what is taking place and that we warn the Government, as we feel we ought, that, if continued, these actions may embitter race relations. Hon. Members may have read the editorial in "The Times" this morning which speaks with its own authority and adds its voice to other voices which express apprehension about what is taking place and its effect upon Kenya and its people. Speaking for the Members of my party, I say that we must record our deep conviction on this matter in this Motion and in the Division Lobby.
From the very beginning we have urged that we have two major tasks in Kenya. The first is to restore peace and order. The second is to take all steps necessary to find out what are the causes of this outbreak; what are the grievances; what are the hardships upon which it has fed and is feeding. Why has this happened? We must find out those causes and remove the hardships, the grievances and the frustrations which have found expression in these evil ways.
We realised that that was a job which had both long-term and short-term aspects. Therefore, we welcomed the decision when the Government recommended to Her Majesty that a Royal Commission should be appointed to examine all these problems in Kenya and in East Africa. We welcomed the decision that the Commission should

examine all the economic and social problems in all their aspects and eventually recommend what steps should be taken to deal with them. In addition to that, there were certain grievances and hardships which we have outlined in this Motion which could not, and cannot, wait for the Report of a Royal Commission. We think that urgent steps should be taken to deal with them as soon as possible.
I turn now to what I can only describe as the strange history of the proposed Royal Commission—a history made even more tortuous by the replies given yesterday by the Colonial Secretary to Questions by my hon. and right hon. Friends. I should like to say something about the background of this Commission before the present Colonial Secretary took office. In May, 1951, it was may privilege to visit Kenya. It was a short visit of eight days. I had to come back and vote in the House of Commons.
During those eight days two major problems engaged my attention. There was the constitutional problem. That was urgent because the existing constitution, in accordance with what is almost normal custom in Colonial Territories, fell to be revised in 1952. Generally speaking, the arrangements are made for four years and are then revised. I had placed before me proposals by representatives of all the races—Europeans, Africans, Asians and Arabs—giving their ideas about the future constitutional development of the Colony and their place in it.
I had discussion with them. I felt that the matter had to be settled while I was there. Eventually, a settlement was arrived at. The House now knows a good deal about that, and I do not propose to say any more except that I came to the conclusion that to build a democratic multi-racial community in Kenya or elsewhere we must begin with members of all the races coming round the same table and discussing the matter together as fellow citizens of the same country. I say that it was to the credit of all the representatives of all the peoples and races that they accepted my invitation to form a round-table conference to seek to hammer out in agreement the future constitutional development of Kenya and to decide the place of all their peoples and communities in it.


The second problem to which I devoted myself and about which I had discussions with many representatives of all the races, especially with the Africans, including discussions with the Kenya African Union, was that which forms the substance of this despatch by Sir Philip Mitchell—land hunger and poverty, low wages and bad housing, squatters on farms and rootless people in the towns. All these problems are put forward with penetrating comment in this despatch which I hope every hon. Member will read.
I discussed these matters with the then Governor, Sir Philip Mitchell. We discussed them fully. He told me then what he had in mind, which was that in due course—indeed, he said in the very near future—he would set out his ideas about the whole of these problems. Who can go to Kenya without being disturbed about them? Who can go to Africa without being disturbed about them? Who can go to Asia without being disturbed about them? We were all disturbed, and we discussed these matters. He said that he would set out his views and recommendations fully in a despatch upon which he was working. I left office on 25th October, 1951. The despatch arrived in the Colonial Office one month after, in November, 1951. The despatch, right through, has a note of urgency about it and ends by inviting the Colonial Secretary:
If you are prepared to support my recommendation for the appointment of a Royal Commission I suggest that I might be authorised to publish this despatch and your reply at an early date.
The first version came 13 months ago; the revised version in April this year.
In June of this year my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, some hundreds of us, tabled a Motion on Kenya and put it on the Order Paper of the House. I invite the House to read that Motion. We called attention to many of these problems—not all of them, but the most urgent of them—in that Motion. We did not present it as a formal Motion of the House, nor did we ask the House to vote upon it. We sought the opportunity of a debate, which we had on 17th July, to discuss among other problems concerning our Colonies the problem of Kenya and,

in particular, to discuss the substance of the Motion.
On 17th July why did not the Colonial Secretary tell us that he had this despatch in the office? Here we were discussing the very country with all its problems and discussing it in a responsible way. Our instincts were to ask the House to declare upon that Motion, but I took the responsibility of advising my hon. Friends not to do that and they accepted my advice—

Mr. Harold Davies: That is true.

Mr. Griffiths: I think that when we were discussing the matter the right hon. Gentleman could have told us of this despatch. He said, in the end, that he was considering setting up a Royal Commission but was not in a position to make a formal announcement: I do not think he took it as far as a formal announcement. But this despatch has been there all the time. It was there on 17th July and it has been there since. But it was not until last week that we discovered that the original despatch setting out this penetrating analysis of the problems of Kenya had been in the hands of the Secretary of State for 13 months. Quite frankly—and I speak with restraint—that delay is unpardonable.
We still await the completion of the Royal Commission. I do not know whether the Secretary of State can tell us today that its membership has now been completed, but we urge that it should be completed quickly. We urge that it should be asked to give top priority to the problems of Kenya. It has been given an immense task. It has to cover the whole of East Africa—Tanganyika alone is equal in area to England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and France put together—Uganda and Kenya. It has a long job and a necessary job, but there is no reason why a Royal Commission, given a very big job of this kind, should not be asked by Her Majesty's Government, or instructed by Her Majesty's Government, to give priority to the problems we think are the more urgent.
I therefore urge that it be given instructions to give top priority to Kenya and its problems and to present an interim report. It should have been at its work some time ago and it should be at its work now. In circumstances of this kind, when we still have the problem not only of defeating the terror of Mau Mau,


but of restoring confidence in Kenya—confidence to all the races and, in view of what has taken place, not least the task of restoring the confidence of the African—the very announcement that the Royal Commission had been appointed and was on its way would by itself, even before it began its task, do much to steady African opinion and strengthen the hands of responsible, moderate African leaders. I urge very strongly that the Commission be completed at once and asked to go to Kenya to examine the more urgent of its problems and present an interim report for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, of Parliament and the nation.
Meanwhile, there are some things which cannot wait; some things which ought to be done at once and about these I want to say a word or two to the Colonial Secretary. Speaking for all my right hon. and hon. Friends—and I hope I shall not be thought presumptuous when I say that I believe I speak for a large part of our nation—in this problem, with all the underlying causes of Mau Mau which we have been seeking to understand and which this despatch helps us to understand even more, we have been disturbed. We have been under a growing uneasiness and disquiet at the attitude of the Secretary of State to these underlying causes.
It has seemed to me and to my hon. Friends that in the statements he has made—I am not going to quote them; they have been made in this House and are within its recollection—that the general tenor of his remarks has been almost to pour scorn on the suggestion we have made that this could not have happened unless there were underlying causes and that this was not merely the work of a secret society.
It is that of a terrorist gang and I remember the Secretary of State, in our first debate on this subject, telling the House that it was the work of common or garden agitators. I said, and I repeat now, that I remember an old chief telling me, "If you find there is trouble in that place do not bother too much about the fact that someone has been exploiting it. That is important, but find out what is there to exploit."
We have urged that the right hon. Gentleman should look at the problems in that way and the Secretary of State, it

seems to us, has taken a superficial view of this matter. That has disturbed us and we say so publicly now, perhaps for the first time, because we feel it is our duty to say it and we cannot stay silent any longer without saying it. I am bound to, ask whether, when he made those statements, he had read the despatch and whether he can reconcile what he has said with what is in this despatch. We need not go beyond the first page, paragraph (iv);
The fact is that a revolution in the economic and social basis of life of large numbers. of Africans began some 50 years ago, and has by now gone a long way. …
The substance of this despatch describes that revolution.
Sir Philip Mitchell quotes, on the second page, a report written a very long time ago, in 1933, by a district commissioner, in this very area where the trouble is taking place, in which he describes the major problem of Kenya as a race between increasing population and soil deterioration—a race for survival. I could go on reading from this despatch to which I would add a word on Mau Mau just published by Dr. Leakey, at which I have only been able just to glance. That seems to me a work which should be read by everyone, because he sees this problem through the eyes of the Kikuyu themselves. It is important for us to do that also for it is quite clear that what is taking place in Kenya is the impact of our civilisation on their form of civilisation, to break up all their tribal organisations and all that flows from that.
Now, I want to make one other quotation from this despatch, and I ask the House to read it and to ponder it. Let us all remember that what, in the literature of the world when discussing these problems, is now "colonialism" is. on its trial—on its way out, if you like. The problem that we have to face and to solve is how it will go out—whether it will develop into a democratic society. I ask hon. Members to read paragraph 40 of this despatch, from which I will read one or two passages. This is what Sir Philip Mitchell says:
The East African Territories began their development as economically productive countries at a time when it was generally believed that cheapness of production must be the overriding consideration in the case of tropical raw materials, and that it could only be achieved by low wages.


I ask the House to realise that that is the thesis of people in the world who are hostile to us. That is what is being said—that the economic development of these Colonial Territories, in the main, has been to meet our needs and not theirs. I am stating the case we have to meet; that is what is being said. I admit that there is truth in it, and the consequence is that we get what Sir Philip Mitchell describes here, and what those of us who have been in Kenya have seen—all the problems of a low wage economy. So we have land hunger and low wages, and this kind of vicious circle which must be broken somewhere.
I have been myself for a short time in this very important and exciting office, and I have sometimes made to this House statements with which many people did not agree. I say that one of the most important developments, back in 1945 by the then Colonial Secretary, my right hon. Friend who now sits in another place, which was followed up by his successor and later by myself, was the development of the trade union movement among these industrial workers to seek to develop a policy which would get us out of the vicious circle of the low wage economy.
This is only part of the difficulties and circumstances in which all these problems arise, both in Kenya and elsewhere. These problems of the land, new towns, housing and the cost of living are of immense importance, and we urge upon the Government, not only because of what has happened, but more urgently because of it, that every step shall be taken to deal with this problem as urgently as they possibly can, while, at the same time, we affirm our support to the Government in making available to the Government and people of Kenya all the financial and other help which is required so that they can do this job.
These are some of the things about which we are disturbed, but I propose, having regard to the fact that so much of our time was taken by other matters, to limit myself to a few further words. We are determined to suppress Mau Mau, but let me say very sincerely that the fact that all this has happened is a challenge to us. The fact that it has happened is, I fear, a measure of our failure. While we are resolved to eliminate it, let us, at the same time, face up to the challenge.
Now I come to what is perhaps, in many ways, one of the frustrations which have created the atmosphere in which a movement of this kind could grow as it has grown, and that is the problem of the colour bar. It is a profound human problem, and I do not believe anyone can make an important contribution to it unless he does understand it, other than as a great human problem.
We have taken our civilisation to Africa, we have taken our religion to Africa; we have taken new ideas, revolutionary ideas, and we cannot stop now. Our coming and all that we have done has broken up their own society, and we have failed to integrate them into our own. What did we do? We took the Africans from their villages to work on our farms, in our factories, on our railways and in our workshops. We took their young people and provided them with schools and colleges, and we even brought them here. At this very moment. there are 2,000 students from Africa here in this country, hundreds of them in this city. We teach them our ways of life, we educate them and we give them our civilisation, and they go back to find the doors shut to them.
I have spoken most frankly to all sorts of people about this problem. I have spoken most frankly to those to whom I thought I was entitled to speak—people of the same colour of skin as myself, working in the mines of Rhodesia, to whom I thought I could speak as one miner to another. Here was a case where we had white people and African people both contributing to the economy of the country, but, at the same time, with a rigid colour bar cutting across the pits. My own union and the international union of miners are doing their utmost to bring both unions together to settle a programme of advancement by which that barrier can be broken down.
I know all the difficulties, or at least some of them, but when young men or women, trained and educated in the professions, go back to Africa and feel that they are unwanted, what do we do? We make them bitter, and we cause them to turn away from us. In many ways, this is the most important of all aspects of the problem. There are serious land problems, serious industrial problems and serious material problems in Kenya and elsewhere, but most serious of all is the human problem.


It is given to us to have the responsibility and the opportunity, in Kenya and elsewhere, to bring these peoples to live together and build up their country as partners, and the last thing that we urge in our Motion is that we should take advantage of the suggestions and the offers that have been made by leaders of all the races of Kenya to come together in a round table conference.
My hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) were recently in Kenya and met people at round table conferences. They came back to encourage us to believe that the round table conference would go on meeting, and give its support, not only in removing Mau Mau but to easing racial tension and, added to the conference which I set up 18 months ago, begin a period of racial co-operation in Kenya.
We wrote from this House to major Europeans, Africans, Asians and Arabs to say to them that we were glad to think that many of them want to come together to join in discussions and present a common front to the evils of Mau Mau, and to join in eliminating it. And to do much more than that; to join in a common effort to remove the hardships, grievances and frustrations from which it emerged and in the future to build together a finer and a better Kenya.
It is because we believe and feel these things; because we believe this is a policy which commends itself not only to our own party but to large numbers of people in our country who do not belong to our party; because we believe we speak for the best in Britain, that I have moved this Motion.

5.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I beg to move to leave out from "order" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
Meanwhile, the Government of Kenya should continue by all possible means to promote the social, political and economic progress of the territory. This House reaffirms its belief that these efforts can succeed only through common action by all races.
I shall deal with this Motion, in the names of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and other hon. Gentlemen opposite, under its four separate headings. I

think there are four. The first is a general expression of sympathy and support. The second discloses fears about collective punishment. The third criticises the handling of Sir Philip Mitchell's despatch and the delay in the appointment of the Royal Commission. The fourth deals with long-term problems of a general nature.
The first sentence of the Motion runs:
That this House extends its sympathy to all races in Kenya in their present ordeal and reaffirms its support of lawful action to eliminate Mau Mau and to suppress barbarous and violent crimes. …
I accept those words. But, unfortunately, the unexceptionable first sentence will strike rather a chill note in the hearts of the law-abiding Africans, Asians and Europeans in Kenya unless the sentiment expressed in the second part of the sentence receives rather more support, rather more than lip-service from hon. Gentlemen opposite than it has yet done. I do not think it is even yet realised—not perhaps in this House, but in the country—what are the evil forces arrayed against peace in Kenya today.
I must give the House a few true examples of atrocities which have been committed within the last month or so. They will give a fair impression of the sort of terror with which we are today faced in Kenya—[An HON. MEMBER: "The big stick again, evidently."] It is really necessary when we examine the circumstances in which these measures have to be taken.
On 22nd October, senior Kikuyu chief, Nderi, was hacked to pieces by a mob of 500 Kikuyus, of all ages and both sexes who had met for Mau Mau ceremonies. On 28th October, Mr. Eric Bowyer, a European farmer in the Kinagop district, was murdered in his bath and his home looted after the assailants had killed two African children in his kitchen.

Mr. Leslie Hale: That has nothing to do with Mau Mau, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. It is not relevant at all.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member must contain himself. No doubt he will have an opportunity of making his own speech. I did not interrupt the right hon. Member for Llanelly on one single occasion, and


it is a long-established custom of this House that when people are attacked by name they should be given at least a fair and uninterrupted hearing.
On 11th November a police raid upon a Mau Mau ceremony rescued two non-Kikuyu women who had been slashed about their faces and a small girl who was found with her hands tied behind her back. On 8th December an Asian shopkeeper in the Thika district was murdered by about 40 attackers. He died from multiple injuries inflicted with swords and knives. His wife and son were also slashed. On 12th December a loyal African in the South Nyeri Reserve was awakened early in the morning by a knock on the door and shot dead at point blank range when he opened it. At the same time, three armed men broke into the house of an African headman in the same Reserve, shot his wife, who fell to the ground, and then pumped several more shots into her body. They then shot the headman himself.
If these were plain murders or mutilations of cattle they would be bad enough. But the savagery with which these crimes are committed beggars description, and it is for that reason only that I have, with the greatest reluctance, placed certain photographs in the Library. How easy it is to extend sympathy and, while affirming support for other measures, do nothing but embarrass the Government of the day in Kenya, the police and the course of justice alike.
There is no one of whatever section of whatever party in this House or elsewhere who has not shown great sympathy to all races in Kenya. Here, at least, we have something in common. But, unfortunately for the Government, and myself as Secretary of State, who has some responsibility in these matters, sympathy is not enough. Action has to be taken. At the same time, we must keep these dreadful events in proper perspective. More than three-quarters of the total area and population of Kenya are peaceful. The troubles are confined to an area a little larger than the area of Surrey. Let there be no question in the mind of anyone that the terror will be stamped out, and that, when I give these horrible instances, they apply to a small section of the whole population. I wish to keep the matter in perspective.

I am surprised to see the somewhat violent reaction of hon. Members opposite and some of their Press followers to my statement that the Mau Mau is not the direct child of economic pressure. All those with whom I have been able to consult, and who have spent their lives among the Kikuyu people consider this statement to be true. When I made it in a broadcast in Kenya this sentence was vetted by the Governor and by his advisers on native affairs. But, having said that, what I do not mean is that there are no economic problems and no grievances. Of course there are.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would have been quite impossible for Mau Mau, a terrorist movement, to have gained such momentum unless it could feed the fires of its campaign of crime—imitating, if that is the word, some Communist technique here and there—with the fuel of some supposed, some feigned and some genuine grievances.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned this book by Dr. Leakey. I have read it, but I have not studied it closely. I have done more than glance at it. He opens Chapter 12 with these words:
A great deal of publicity has been given to the suggestion that the Mau Mau movement 'is not the child of economic pressure or connected with any special grievances'"—
those are not my words, I am quoting.
It is true that Mau Mau, as such, is a terrorist organisation whose principal aim is to drive the white man out of Kenya. I do not believe, however, that the movement could ever have achieved its present position if the genuine grievances which I have outlined in some of my chapters had not existed in the minds of a large part of the Kikuyu population.
That is not quite the emphasis that either I or my advisers would give to the situation, but, in fairness, I do not wholly disagree with those sentiments.
Let us be quite clear. We are faced by a revolutionary movement. It has to be suppressed before we can get a very quick advance upon the long-term economic problems, and we must recognise that. It is premature, when the law-abiding squatter or farmer goes in terror of his life in these particular areas, to talk to him about co-operative farming in these troubled areas.
Let me make it quite clear at this point that co-operative farming is the scheme of farming which the Governor and I think has a large, and possibly even


decisive, contribution to make to the land problem in agriculture and the conservation and better fertility of the soil. There are very large areas in Kenya today where the land problem is particularly acute, and more acute even than in the Kikuyu zone, where there is no Mau Mau trouble whatever. There in this area, Nyanza Province, peace, good will, trust and prosperity between the races reign unchallenged. There we can push on unimpeded with the long-term measures, and in the Kikuyu areas, let me make it quite clear, we shall do all we can, the only impediments being those caused against our will by the emergency measures.
I hope that these words will do something to reassure hon. Members opposite. What we can do in the trouble areas during the emergency will, I fear, fall short of what we would like to do, but there is no justification for hon. Members opposite harbouring any fear, if they do harbour any, that we are going to soft pedal or consciously halt progress during the emergency. Where it is halted, it will be from necessity and not from design, and I give the House that pledge.
I now turn to the second part of the Motion, and I want, before I get into the subject of collective punishment, to make my position crystal clear, and I shall analyse what has been happening. I abhor collective punishment and the necessity for it. Collective punishment should never be imposed while there are other means of restoring law and order under the normal action of the police. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that when collective punishment is imposed, it must be imposed in a small area where the crime has been committed and where witnesses will not come forward. The right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his remarks that collective punishment applied to a whole tribe. I think those were his words, but I think it was an inadvertence on his part. I assure him that that is not at all what I think. I think that if it has to be imposed, it must be in a small area where the crime has been committed. It should not be imposed over a wider area than is absolutely necessary. In other words, we should aim to pinpoint collective punishment upon the particular community which has been responsible for the crime.
Before I go any further, let me give the House some of the history of collective punishment, particularly during the tenure of office of the previous Labour Government. I am not in any way going to be provocative, and I. want to begin by saying that the instances I am about to give are not designed to show that the late Government were wrong in what they did. I think they had no alternative in the grim situations with which they were faced. But right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not entitled to claim that the very severe measures which they took, for example, in Malaya and in Nigeria, were justified and that the measures which the Government of Kenya now find it necessary to take should be condemned.
I select the date of 15th February, 1951, to begin with. On that day, 1,600 of the inhabitants of Jenderam, in Selangor, were arrested, taken away from their village and thrown into a detention camp. In reply to a Question in the House of Commons—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: By whom?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not seeking to avoid giving any information, but I am now dealing with an official Opposition Motion. I can only deal with what was then done officially.
On 7th March, the late Mr. Cook, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, said:
The 1,600 inhabitants of Jenderam, consisting mostly of Indonesians, Malays and Chinese, were detained under Emergency Regulation 17D, which provides for collective detention; they have been evacuated to a camp for screening after which those who can safely be released will be resettled. The reason for this action was that Jenderam had long been a hotbed of Communist activities. It had been a centre for providing supplies and recruits for Terrorist bands operating in South Selangor. No information whatever had been forthcoming from the inhabitants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 60.]
I consider that the stern action which the Government of the Federation of Malaya took was the only one they could take, and that it was justified by the situation with which they were faced. I do not want to make any small points, but it is remarkable that no further Questions were asked, either by Labour or Liberal Members, on that occasion. No expressions of disapproval, or even instructions enjoining caution were sent by the then


Secretary of State for the Colonies, the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat.
No collective punishment of this severity has yet been visited upon any area in Kenya. Of course, mass detentions and mass imprisonment, which this was, are the most severe form of collective punishment, but if I turn back the pages a year or two I can give numerous instances under the last Government where collective fines were imposed with the connivance, passive or otherwise, of His Majesty's Government, as it then was.
Even this less severe form of collective punishment must be used only when all else fails. Regulation 17D, which is the equivalent of the old Regulation 18B here, remained on the Statute Book of the Federation of Malaya under the aegis of the last Government. Turning to the less severe forms of collective punishment, I can give numerous instances. In August, 1950, for instance, the Kalabari tribesmen in Eastern Nigeria attacked Okrika fishermen after a dispute about fishing rights, and killed 20 of them.
After a Commission of Inquiry, whose findings were accepted by the Government, the Kalabari were fined £20,000. Replying to a Question about this in May, 1951, the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, refused to ask the Governor of Nigeria to postpone payment of the fine for consideration of the evidence. He said:
I would ask my hon. Friend to examine the evidence when the evidence is made available. He will then see what is the problem which has to be faced and why, so far, no other punishment has been found to be effective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1171.]
Those words apply with redoubled force to the situation in Kenya today. I will not read out these crimes and the dreary record of collective punishment, but there are many others.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not consider that I am accusing them of hypocrisy. I am not. I am only accusing them of having rather short and pliable memories. Depend upon it, there is nothing that interferes with a man's memory so much as crossing the little green rubicon which divides this side of the House from the other.
This is not a controversial matter. I want to revert to this collective punish

ment which is a most important matter. I know this question is a very difficult one for hon. Members who have spent all or most of their lives in a community like our own where law and order are taken almost for granted, and where, again and again, we have instances where public opinion supports the police and the forces of law and order.
Some hon. Members will remember that Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson was shot dead on his own doorstep. I felt proud of my fellow countrymen, as I am sure we all did at the time, when a butcher's boy and a baker's boy, without arms, hunted down the murderer. It is difficult for people who live in a community like ours to realise what happens when all the processes of law and order break down, when people are murdered in public, slashed to pieces in public, before scores of their fellow citizens, and not only is no one prepared to risk his life to apprehend the murderer but no one is prepared to take the risk of giving information to the police or of testifying before the court when the murderer is arrested.
The Motion professes a sentiment which most of us feel, that it is dreadful that innocent people should be penalised; but what the Motion does not face, and what hon. Members opposite do not face, is what are the alternatives when the processes of law have broken down. Is the Government to sit by and do nothing? I say with every sincerity that I can command that in these conditions collective punishment, subject to the conditions which I have mentioned, is often the most merciful measure which is open to us. By it many innocent people have been saved from being murdered and many of those who have remained untouched by these terrible things owe their safety and security to the deterrent effects which collective punishment has had upon the wrongdoers.
I hope I am not over-labouring the point. I take it so very seriously that I hope the House will forgive me if I read an account of the course and results of collective punishment in the Leshau Ward of the Thompson's Falls District. This is written by the Governor:
At the end of November a drastic communal punishment was imposed in the Leshau Ward of the Thompson's Falls district. This district is in the far north of that part


of Kenya which is settled by European farmers, and Leshau is one of its sub-divisions. The farms are large and consequently the farmhouses are far apart. On these big farms there are many patches of very dense forest and in these it is possible for criminals to hide. The area has been the scene of a number of violent crimes culminating in a brutal attack late in November on an elderly couple named Commander and Mrs. Meiklejohn, who were practically cut to pieces by Kikuyu tribesmen. Commander Meiklejohn died, his wife, after showing the greatest courage in driving a car to the police station, has almost miraculously survived. Earlier in November armed gangs had three times in this ward broken into houses and stolen firearms; and on 12th November an African armed with a rifle had attempted to kill a farmer and his wife while they were sitting at dinner. During the same period three other raids were made and arms were stolen on farms close to the Leshau Ward. The Kikuyu are prepared to use the weapons they steal and between 20th November and 6th December cars have been shot at four times in the region near the Leshau Ward.
In these circumstances, that is with a mounting number of crimes in a limited area, with no information being given by the Africans living near the scenes of these crimes and with a virtual certainty in the minds of the police and of the European farmers that these Africans have either actively participated or at least given some help to the criminals, the Governor of Kenya was faced with a difficult position. It was not a choice between whether Africans should be moved from farms in the Leshau Ward or should remain there; it was a choice between whether they should be moved in a controlled manner by the Government or whether the farmers, fearing for their wives, their children and themselves would move them in an uncontrolled way.
I hope the House will take that point.
In order to prevent the rising tide of violence in this area and in order to keep command of the situation, the Government moved all Kikuyu out of the Leshau Ward by stages into the Kikuyu reserves. The numbers of moved were 3,500 people and 8,000 head of small stock were confiscated. In Kenya today it is dangerous to forecast the future, but it can be said that from the date of this move up to the end of last week the whole Laikipia area round the Leshau Ward has been without serious criminal incident, and whereas in the past no information had been given in two cases, most valuable news had been received which has led to the police making a number of arrests.
Before I leave the subject of collective punishment, I want to tell the House, in rather more detail than I was able to do on 3rd December, of the position with regard to the 13,000 people who had been detained between the start of the emergency and the end of November. First, 2,000 were released very quickly. Ten thousand were charged with offences under ordinary law and not the emergency

regulations, and a large number of these were brought to trial before magistrates within 24 hours and given bail in suitable cases.
Of the remaining 1,000, more than 850 had been, and 159 were then being, tried under the emergency regulations. Thus, of the original 13,000, by the end of last month only 159 cases had not been settled by process of law. All these cases were before the courts, and by now most, if not all, will have been settled.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman now able to inform the House what was the total number of Africans who were rounded up for the purposes of screening?

Mr. Lyttelton: I told the hon. Member before that I did not think I should ever be able to give him that figure. The operative figure is that of the 13,000 people who were detained. The figures which I have given do not take into account the 186 persons detained under the emergency regulations, some of whom are now being prosecuted at Kapenguria.
I next turn to the third section of the Motion, which, frankly, appears to me to be an attempt to raise prejudice and to darken counsel upon a subject about which at least the right hon. Gentleman should know better. It deals with Sir Philip Mitchell's despatch. Owing to an understandable—but, for my part, I must say regrettable—mistake, the despatch was dated 16th November whereas in its present form it should have been dated in April. It reached me on 17th April. Hon. Members are, of course, entitled to make what play they like with a misprint. I prefer to trace the course of events and to ask the House to follow me through.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further, will he say whether there were any substantial changes in the despatch between 16th November and 17th April?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes. Sir, a most substantial alteration. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the second paragraph on page 24 of the despatch, over Sir Philip Mitchell's signature he will see these words:
I have discussed this despatch with the Governors of Tanganyika and Uganda …


and so on. On 16th November he had not discussed it with the Governors of Tanganyika and Uganda at all.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I was aware of that change, but I was asking the right hon. Gentleman if there was any substantial alteration in the analysis of the land and economic situation.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir, but I am perfectly entitled to make the point—it is a perfectly good point; I will not take any small ones—that when a despatch says "I have already consulted the Governors of two other territories" when the consultations were not in fact completed for five months, the misprint is more than a formality and renders the thing entirely untrue.
Let us now go on to the course of events. In his capacity as Governor of Kenya, Sir Philip Mitchell addressed a despatch to me—not the one which is printed—on 16th November. I was impressed as I still am impressed, with the wide knowledge and statesmanship of the contents of the despatch, and after some consultations here I sent it on for study by the East African High Commission. At this time Kenya was quiet and no ripple broke the surface. [Interruption.] A personal attack is being made, and I am entitled to have an uninterrupted hearing.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if he thought I was interrupting him. I was merely having a word with my learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice).

Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. and learned Gentleman was carrying on a conversation I entirely acquit him of any discourtesy.
When one is dealing with land and agriculture one is dealing with the very life blood of the African and the things about which he cares most. Sir Philip Mitchell's despatch of 16th November was addressed to me solely in his capacity as Governor of Kenya. Evan if we had been faced with a proposal to institute a series of wide agrarian reforms in Kenya alone it would have given pause to anyone who knows what is involved—though not to some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. But the field of his proposed inquiry included the other two East African territories, as well.
In December, therefore, I addressed a despatch to the Governor of Kenya in his capacity as Chairman of the High Commission, requesting him to arrange for this despatch to be discussed by his other two colleagues. It will not surprise those who keep in touch with these matters to learn that the Governors of Uganda and Tanganyika—as I think rightly—thought that they must consult with their closest advisers, both European and African, about the political effect of such an inquiry, as well as its effect on the agrarian problem itself.
At least, that is the advice which I received, and at the time I had the benefit of personal discussions with Sir Philip Mitchell, who was at pains to point out how delicate were the subjects involved. At this time Kenya was quiet. I say that no Secretary of State, and least of all the right hon. Gentleman who has spoken, would have ignored the advice of Sir Andrew Cohen, Sir Edward Twining and Sir Philip Mitchell on the matter.
The path of wisdom was to try to build up a public opinion which would accept the proposals for a Royal Commission. My colleagues in the Cabinet here, when they examined the despatch, closely considered the consequences of the announcement of a Royal Commission—dealing, I repeat, with agrarian reform, the most explosive of all African subjects—and its terms of reference, and they accepted my recommendations. The Royal Assent was obtained on 5th July.
It therefore remains for me to explain—if explanation is indeed required—why it has not yet been possible to announce the completion of the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to ask his colleagues to read this Report. He has no doubt done so himself; but he might have gone on a little to page 23, paragraph 56, when Sir Philip Mitchell says:
It must be admitted that it is likely to be extremely difficult to assemble the body of experts which the situation requires, but I feel sure nevertheless that, given time, suitable persons can be found. As a target date I would suggest that the Commission should aim to start its work before the end of 1952.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Sir Philip Mitchell is there referring not to the members of the Royal Commission but to the assembling of the staff in East Africa to prepare for the Royal Commission.

Mr. Lyttelton: That would defer the Royal Commission to a still later date.

Mr. Griffiths: The final despatch was in the hands of the Secretary of State in April, when Sir Philip Mitchell was still Governor. In his despatch he urged that it was essential to us to assemble all his Staff out there. Was that step taken in April?

Mr. Lyttelton: This is a mere splitting of hairs. What I have read out is Sir Philip Mitchell's opinion about the time it should take to assemble the experts for the Royal Commission—the members of the Royal Commission—and he put the target date as the end of 1952.
The author of this despatch has been the subject of a Press smear. For example, the "Daily Mirror" said that the speech he made was fatuous. At least it was true of four-fifths of the country at the time and on the surface about the whole of the country. The actual words used by Sir Philip Mitchell were
You even see it reported that East Africa is seething with African unrest. Of all unspeakable nonsense.
That is what he said. I am glad that this despatch, with its wise and constructive approach to this problem, has been published at a time when these unwarrantable smears are current not only in the Press but elsewhere. I give the House my assurance that no avoidable delay has taken place in seeking appointments of men of the right standing and knowledge and experience to make a contribution to the delicate, difficult, obdurate long-term problem.
I am now going to make two points. The first is that however precipitate and ill-advised an action had been taken to appoint a Royal Commission without building up public opinion in all three Territories and seeking the best possible members, it would not have altered by one jot or tittle the history of the last few months and the reign of terror and crime which it records. The second point is that it was impossible, in the circumstances of our time—and I choose the word "impossible" carefully—to collect the necessary expert body more quickly than it has been done.
The difficulty in these times is to get men of this standing to devote 18 months of their lives, with a good deal

of travelling and a long period of absence from this country, to all the commitments of this Royal Commission. The House is entitled to know—rather against the ordinary conventions—whether I have got all the appointments and what appointments have been approved by Her Majesty.
First, I wanted to find a chairman of great standing and ability whom I could recommend, particularly in view of the length of the investigation which would be involved. I am happy that in the end someone of Sir Hugh Dow's standing and experience agreed that his name should be submitted, and he has been appointed.
We wanted to find an agricultural expert, particularly equipped to give advice upon the advantages and dangers of mechanised farming and mechanised reclamation of land. This post is filled by Mr. Frank Sykes, one of the greatest experts in this country on these subjects, who has already in the past visited East Africa to advise the Colonial Office.
Next we wanted to find a man with a wide knowledge of how to combine peasant agriculture with the advantages of a highly organised plantation industry. We have found him. His name is Mr. Arthur Gaitskell. He is the brother of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and has an unrivalled reputation in this field. I am deeply gratified that he should have accepted.
Next we wanted an African. The first African refused, but Chief Kidaha Makwaia of Tanganyika has accepted. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember that he travelled to Nairobi in the company of this Chief and he will agree that his is an entirely suitable appointment. That appointment has been approved by Her Majesty.
Then we wanted a man with a profound experience of administration, land tenure and tribal customs in Africa. We have him in Mr. R. S. Hudson, at one time Secretary for Native Affairs in Northern Rhodesia. He has been appointed.
As a specialist in industrial relations, we have been fortunate in gaining the acceptance of Professor D. T. Jack, of the University of Durham. He has much experience of arbitration work and of courts of inquiry and wages councils in


this country. He has also been Labour Adviser to the Government of India and has carried out investigations in Northern Rhodesia. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that no better man could have been selected in this field.
I have conditional acceptances from a distinguished economist who has specialised in colonial problems, and from a lady who is a sociologist with an unrivalled knowledge and experience of African affairs. I do not feel able to disclose their names, because their acceptances are conditional. By that I mean that they have expressed their willingness to serve if the necessary arrangements to release them from their present commitments can be made, and I am in close negotiation with the bodies concerned—in one case, a university—to secure their release. I hope, but I cannot be certain, that I shall succeed. There remains only one other place to fill, which I intend to fill with an industrialist; and I am doing everything I can to secure the appointment of the right man.
I conclude this part of my remarks by saying that I make no apologies whatever for any part of my actions relating to Sir Philip Mitchell's despatch. I make no apologies whatever for any so-called delay and I entirely reject the charge of incompetence which has been made. No Secretary of State with any sense of responsibilty could have acted in any other way.
There is one other point with which I will deal very shortly. The Motion seeks to ensure that the Government instruct the Royal Commission to make an interim report. I understand why these words have been added to the Motion. They are to excite prejudice and to suggest that so far from the Royal Commission dealing, as it must, with long term problems as laid down in the Mitchell Report, there are short term solutions for what may well prove to be ephemeral problems. The Motion would have lacked any pretence of logic if it had not had this imputation in it. It was doubtless put into the Motion to try to build up the false case that if the Royal Commission had been appointed six months ago, the Mau Mau outrages would not have taken place. It will be clear to the House that that suggestion has no bearing on the conditions of today.
On the other hand, I shall tell the Chairman of the Commission that if in the course of his deliberations, and in his judgment and that of the Commission, the Royal Commission has some short term contribution to make, he will be free to publish, and we will be glad that he should publish, an interim report and that we would welcome any help of that kind; but it will not be under pressure or upon instructions.
I turn now to the last part of the Motion, and I apologise deeply for keeping the House so long. Nothing could be easier—it is almost a routine matter of political propaganda—than to set down a number of almost unexceptionable platitudes in the hope that the public may think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite could carry them out if they were in power. I do not object to that manoeuvre in any way. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have a prescriptive right to utter these platitudes and need not search their hearts as to whether they could carry them out.
What we want are some measures and suggestions, which, I hope, we shall have in the course of the debate, about how these results, whose aim. I think, is common to us all, can be more quickly obtained. It is a little infelicitous that the Opposition should have selected amongst their objectives the removal of the colour bar, because the area in question is one in which Government action has only a small part to play. I hope that the House knows where I stand on the question of colour bar: I do not believe in it.
Her Majesty's present advisers found the task of removal of the colour bar no easier than did their predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman made a point against himself, with a generosity which I admire, when he said how he himself, with all his mining and trade union experience, was unable to move the European miners in Rhodesia from the position which they had taken up over the years.
I believe that co-operative farming—one item that I pick out of the Motion—will be one of the means of raising the standard of African agriculture. We are at work upon it today in every part of Kenya, except where we are impeded by the emergency, and in many other parts of the Colonial Empire. We believe that


our good intentions will be somewhat impeded if the co-operative agriculturists live in fear of their lives. The object is excellent but with little relation to the hard realities in the Kikuyu Reserve, but with great relation to the problem where the country is peaceful.
I have dealt with these three subjects as a catalogue of desirable, unexceptionable sentiments, but I want now to turn for a few moments to something more positive. First, grim as the situation in Kenya is, it is not without hopeful signs. The home guard amongst the Kikuyu is being formed in many places. Mr. Mathu has come out with a very courageous speech. He is free to call what public meetings he wishes and we will ensure him, by police or other action, the proper liberties of freedom of speech. But Mr. Mathu is not yet ready to hold a public meeting. The House may be able to guess the reason. This is a man who has come out in the most courageous fashion—we have to recognise the fact.
As other leaders appear, they will be given similar facilities, but I must repeat that there is no sense in the idea that public meetings can be authorised without proper precautions being taken, without our being certain, or reasonably certain, of the line taken by those who address them. Only African leaders in whose responsibility the Government can be completely satisfied can be entrusted at the moment to hold these public meetings without grave danger to the public safety.
These are encouraging signs, and I must pay—we all should pay—a tribute to the white settlers, mainly British, in Kenya and to the Asians. They have, I suppose, uttered some rash words—under but what provocation? Their actions, however, have been informed by a restraint, by a humanity and by a regard for the long-term aspirations of Kenya which must excite the admiration even of those who are inclined to think that the white man is always wrong.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lyttelton: Regarding the emergency, excellent progress has been made with closer policing and closer administration of the Kikuyu areas. Twenty extra police posts have been built and are now manned. The closer administration, which means more District staff, will be

slower to complete, but we expect speedy results from these two measures.
I turn now from the present troubles to the longer and higher task which we and the Government of Kenya have in view. Having detained the House so long, I cannot traverse the whole field and so I leave out the question of land, because that is the subject of the Royal Commission. I pick out three desirable objectives, which are as close to my thoughts and to those of the Governor and Government of Kenya as they are to any hon. Member.
The first of these subjects is the raising of wage levels in Kenya. As there is a good deal of personal attack in the Motion, I am entitled to ask—I do not want to be offensive—why hon. Members opposite are so severe about it when nothing proved practical during the six years when they were in office.

Mr. Griffiths: That is not true. Before we came to office, there were only 20 trade unions in the Colonies. Wages and trade unions are closely related. Now, there are over 1,200 trade unions. We built them up during the six years that we were in Government.

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to say that, and I shall have a word to say about it. I do not think that it is quite a full contribution to the subject to talk about industries when agricultural wages are the vital thing to which I am referring. Agriculture is the lifeblood of Kenya. I am in accord, and will continue the work that is done, with regard to industrial wages and machinery for conciliation and so forth, but as long as agricultural wages are not adequate we are really burking the question by saying that there has been any great advance since the war on this vital matter for Kenya. This matter should not be let go. With all the reservations about wages in a primitive society, I think that the present level should give us all cause for thought.
Coupled with the wages question is that of the price of maize meal. The Government of Kenya are now considering—and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Hale) is, I know, very much interested in this point, and he will realise where the administrative difficulties are in carrying it out—are now considering this question of the


instigation of a number of "unofficial" European members.
The second subject which I wish to mention, which has some relation to the colour bar, is the system by which Africans and Asians in the senior Civil Service, with similar qualifications, receive only three fifths of the salaries paid to their European counterparts. This system was introduced—I think mistakenly—under the auspices of the party opposite as a result of the Holmes Report. I dislike the system, and I hope to live to see it abolished. But it does not mean—I must be quite candid—that we can get exact equality of pay between those who are resident in the country and those who have special obligations outside it.
There are two more things with which I have to weary the House. The first refers to local government. That is part of the Motion. My belief here, in Kenya, as in other parts of the Empire, is that the best means of building up self-government is from what I may call the parish level. This was not possible—I am not criticising—not possible in Kenya from the start. The creation of African district councils was in fact the creation of something like the English county councils, without those councils having their roots in what we should describe in this country as urban or rural district councils.
The Kenya Government have begun to put this right, and they have made a significant start. I was rather surprised to see this part of the Motion, but hon. Members may be interested to read the 100 or more pages of the Ordinance—I have it in my hand—dated 1st July to make provision for a system of county local government. They will find the answer to their anxieties and preoccupations in this document, if they will do me the honour of reading it.
The last subject is agriculture. There was a time when Africans, rightly or wrongly, were not permitted to grow vital crops—cash crops—such as coffee, tea, sisal, or pyrethrum. The reason for this embargo, if that is the right term, was that at the time it was felt—and the same problem arises in other parts of Africa—that the population must be made to concentrate upon subsistence crops. Whether or not that was right I do not know. At

any rate, it is understandable and arguable. That situation has changed, and the growing of those crops is now permitted. Not only that, but the Government are assisting with coffee nurseries. It is hoped to plant each year an increasing acreage of African coffee—something between 1,500 and 3,000 acres every year.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]— when this change was made?

Mr. Lyttelton: I really think the hon. Member must allow me to get on. I have kept the House a very long time. In the Nyeri district, in the Kikuyu reserve—

Mr. Brockway: It is a very simple question.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not trying to take credit for anything. I am trying to tell what has been happening. Hon. Members are so extraordinarily touchy. If I mention progress by the Government of Kenya that took place at a time when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, I am the first person to take my hat off to them; but equally, if they accept that position, they must take the blame for the bad things that happened at the time when they were in office.
A start has been made in the Nyeri district with African tea, with the help of representatives of one of the main tea growing firms. These are interesting advances. There are still more interesting ones in the efficiency of farming, and premiums are given for good husbandry, of which I give one example. In Nyanza Province if a co-operative farming unit has 50 per cent. of the farmers pass the test, then the increased premium is given to all the members of the co-operative society. There has been great success in other parts by turning the members of tribes who were entirely pastoralists into mixed farmers.
Now I must end. I want to go back to what, I think, is the most important part of my remarks. I pledge my word to this House—and I can do so because I have received a pledge and assurances of this nature from the Government and the Governor of Kenya—that no intentional check, or no check intending to


be a punishment, will be imposed on anybody in Kenya. I pledge our word that all progress, whether it is political, social, or industrial, or agricultural will be pushed on as fast as circumstances permit. It will be less rapid than we should have liked.
Now I turn for one short moment to the Government's Amendment. The sentiments and purposes which animate my colleagues and me can be seen in the Government Amendment, which seeks to leave out from "order," to the end of the Question, and to add:
Meanwhile, the Government of Kenya should continue by all possible means to promote the social, political and economic progress of the territory. This House reaffirms its belief that these efforts can succeed only through common action by all races.
I say that no personal attacks and no fatuous opposition will deter us from doing our duty to the Government and peoples of Kenya. We must extirpate crime and terror. We must act with true humanity, but from strength and not from weakness. We must inflict as few wounds as we can and leave as few scars as we can. We must help the Government of Kenya in every way in their difficult role of at once fostering progress and suppressing disorder. We must never lose sight of the fact that the future of Kenya can lie only in political advancement, expanded social services, and in agricultural and industrial development, and, above all, in peace and good will and co-operation between the races.
The actions of the Opposition—and I say it with regret—over the last month or two show that they are set upon the course of breaking down unity upon colonial affairs between the two principal parties of the State which we, when we were in Opposition, so sedulously fostered. Some of their leaders—I do not think all—seem determined to throw into the turmoil, the clamour and the clash of party politics all those causes which, at other times, they profess to support and to cherish, and to seek to try to draw political advantages from the dangers by which we are all surrounded. Many of the speeches and actions of their supporters—and again, not all—throughout these testing times in Kenya will, no doubt unwittingly, bring comfort to the Queen's enemies, and show little of that support for their own countrymen, Asians, and law-abiding Africans, which they

profess. [Interruption.] Some of their leaders, I said.
I end on a note of confidence. These troubles will pass. Not quickly, but they will pass; and then these grim events, in the perspective of history, will assume their true proportions, as day by day Kenya advances towards enlightenment, prosperity and peace amongst its peoples.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Frank Bowles: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in finishing off his speech by indicating what a really serious cleavage there is between hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members on that so far as colonial affairs are concerned. Before I get on to that I should like to remind him that some time ago, when he made a statement on the Kenya situation, and, I think, in that suggested that Mau Mau was not the creature solely of economic causes, I asked him this question, as to whether or not he had considered at all the question of the effect of the tribal marriage customs. He said he did not really know much about that. I quite understand. He had been at the Colonial Office only a little while.
Let me start by saying that there is a view held amongst the white settlers in Kenya that one of the most important causes of the economic troubles is this matter. Before 1900 there was a tribal custom that when a young man could persuade his family to allow him to do so, he would get married. When the wife was selected, and the husband's family decided whether or not she was likely to be an efficient and faithful wife, they paid in cattle, goats and sheep a certain number of heads to ensure marriage stability.
I gather from what I have been reading that that practice worked very well, but as time went on this custom broke down, and now when an African desires to get married he does not consult his family to the same extent, because families have been broken up more than they were 50 years ago, but the bride's father insists upon the payment of £100 as the price of the bride.
I understand—I know that some of my hon. Friends have worse figures than this—that the average wage for an African agricultural worker on a farm is £1 a month. It therefore takes eight and a half years, if he spends nothing at all, to


produce the purchase money. This desire to get married does, I think, have a very serious effect upon the activities of people, and I believe that it is a great mistake to assume that all the crimes which have been taking place in Kenya recently are really due to Mau Mau. Some of these crimes, I think, are purely and simply ordinary armed burglary by Africans in search of wealth, so that they may find this bridal price. I do, therefore, suggest to the Minister that that is one of the things which has changed since the European settler arrived in Kenya. It is regarded by people who have accurate experience on the spot as being quite a serious matter.
I see that the Minister is seized of the point, and I think that if he takes further advice on the matter he will find that there is a good deal more in it than the House thought when I raised this matter before, and when my remarks were greeted with some laughter.

Mr. Lyttelton: Not by me.

Mr. Bowles: No, but I think by hon. Members mainly behind him. The House seemed to think that I was changing the subject and had said something funny because they could not understand the point.
I think that we should attempt to get rid of that practice and that if protests were made to the leaders of opinion of the Kikuyu tribe a good deal might be done by their saying, "This is an old-fashioned custom, and we are not going to insist on it any more for your sons and for your daughters." I think that in that way a great cause of economic pressure would be removed.
We say clearly in our Motion that we vigorously condemn Mau Mau savagery and its organisation. I do not want hon. Members to think that I am not personally concerned with this matter. I have two of my closest and dearest relatives living in Kenya and, therefore, I hope that I am not saying anything irresponsible.
I am bound to say that when I was in Kenya, some three years ago, I was told by almost every white settler I met, "After all, these Africans are really monkeys just recently descended from the trees." [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members on my word of honour that that

is a common opening gambit by white farmers and others in Nakuru and in Nairobi, and that seems to be the opening gambit of some hon. Members opposite who do not take these people seriously and who are inclined to regard them as only monkeys. I am not sure that the hon. Member opposite has not said that to other people.

Mr. Frederic Harris: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to me, I trust that he will take that back. I certainly never made such a statement in my life.

Mr. Bowles: Will the hon. Member swear that he has never heard that stated?

Mr. Harris: I will quite definitely swear that I personally have never heard that phrase used. Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to withdraw it? It is a most unfair statement. I have never made such a statement.

Mr. Bowles: When I asked the hon. Member if he had said it himself, he said that he had not, and when I asked him whether he had heard it said, he said that he had not. The fact is that he has spent so little time in Kenya that he does not know.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has made an accusation against me, and I asked that it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Bowles: I asked whether, when he was in Kenya, he had ever heard it said that the African Kikuyu were monkeys, and he said he had not.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman said that he would not have been surprised if I had said that myself. I ask that he be good enough to withdraw those remarks. It is an entirely unfair statement and he should withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that nothing has been said that needs to be withdrawn. I understand from the hon. Member's own statement that the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House did not accuse the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) of having said it.

Mr. Harris: Yes, he did.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that he said that the hon. Member might have said


it. I do not know whether this is worth withdrawing, but I hope that the debate will be conducted with as little heat as possible. If something has been said which should be withdrawn, I am sure that the hon. Member will withdraw it.

Mr. Bowles: I will. I heard almost every white settler when starting a conversation, and knowing that I was a Member of Parliament, saying, "Don't worry about these Africans too much; they are monkeys recently descended from trees." The hon. Member for Croydon, North interrupted and said—

Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman definitely implied that I said that. It is only fair that this accusation should be withdrawn. Why should he not withdraw it? I have sworn that I never said it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) might save us from a waste of time in this matter by withdrawing any such implication.

Mr. Bowles: Certainly, Sir. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the "East African Standard" of 24th March, 1948, where he will see quite clearly other evidence of what I am saying.
This is very important. The suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and, I think, of the Colonial Secretary was that we should try to get together the Europeans, Africans, Indians and Arabs in Kenya to see if some agreement could not be reached as to how the four could go on living peacefully together. I am bound to say that one of the great troubles which I found there was the antagonism to the Indians. The general cry, not once, was—I remember it clearly over three years ago—"After all, the Indians come here and do all the business and own all the shops and then go back to Bombay without paying any taxes at all." My reaction was that a good many people have gone out there who have ceased to pay taxes here.
On this monkey question, when one asks "who cooked the dinner or drove the car," one is told, "an African." When one asks, "Who is the person who drives the launch to the flying-boat," one is told, "an African"; "who fills the flying-boat with petrol"—"an African." Nevertheless, there is a great determination on the part of some—I will not say

all, because there are some good whites—to try to denigrate these people and to say "They are just monkeys," when some of these people do every single thing on the farms where they are employed and are hard-workers on their own farms. I think that is a matter which should be carefully watched in the future if the plan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly is going to fructify.
I think that when my right hon. Friend in his speech today, and also the Colonial Secretary, said something about an early inquiry, there were cries of opposition from the benches opposite. Why is it that they are all so anxious not to have an inquiry? They are bound to have one now, inasmuch as the late Governor of Kenya has suggested it in very forceful language. But, quite frankly, they would rather that things went on without an inquiry, because as far as they are concerned they live very happily on the land as it is.
I also find that there is great dislike of this House of Commons by very responsible members of the Kenya Legislative Council. It was reported in "The Times" last Friday that the leader of the European elected members in the Kenya Legislature, Mr. Blundell, was alleged to have asked why Colonial Office officials should be terrified by "a twopenny-halfpenny thing like a Parliamentary question." I have heard many unfortunate and serious things said by many Europeans in the Colony about this House of Commons. As a Labour Member of Parliament, of course, I might have been a particular bait for them, but they did not like Mr. Oliver Stanley very much more than a Labour Minister.
I saw in the Press that when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) were on their way there their presence was not wanted. It was suggested that their entrance should be forbidden if that could possibly be done. I am sure that I have not dreamt this—I believe that somebody also suggested physical violence as well. It is not good enough to suggest that Members of Parliament should be received like that. It is time that there was a certain amount of modesty and sense of responsibility among people who react like that.


I do not think that they like the welfare State nor the policy that we on this side of the House would pursue. We would pursue a Socialist solution and not a capitalist solution in the exaggerated form one finds it there of the whites exploiting the blacks. I agree that there is a certain number of Kikuyu capitalists as well, but the main interest of the white settlers there naturally is exploitation and the avoidance of taxation in this country if possible. Therefore, I say that they are opposed even to the welfare State system, let alone to what we on this side of the House should do if we had the chance to go ahead now.
I could not speak Swahili, Kikuyu, Arabic or any of the Indian languages, but I have the impression from the many to whom I spoke that some of the opposition to any kind of co-operation would come from our friends who left this country as, so they are pleased to describe themselves, voluntary exiles from this "septic" isle.
The solution to this problem is not, as some people have suggested, a scheme designed to take land from the Europeans. That land is proportionately very small indeed, but I believe that there are large areas of land in Kenya which are not occupied and which are not being developed at all By modern methods of cultivation and an attempt to get away from the old tribal traditional methods we could help towards a solution of this problem.
I believe that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly who read a quotation from Sir Philip Mitchell's despatch to the effect that the next 20 years or so would be a race between population and increased efficiency among Africans, particularly in their farming methods. The solution of this problem, therefore, is not an easy one, especially when Mau Mau is able to make use of this land problem with people who are disgruntled from other causes and to say to them, "After all, all this land has been taken from you."
Various proposals are mentioned in our Motion, and, naturally, all of us on this side of the House support them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said, it is a most disheartening thing—and I have seen it myself—for Africans who are equally able to do some

job to receive half or less in wages or salary of what the white man receives for doing that job. There is no reason why it should be so. We believe in the rate for the job, and it is quite wrong that this racial colour bar should exist when it can only lead to great irritation and the kind of method which everybody is deploring at the present time.
A good many of the troubles have arisen from the increase in population. In the old days, before the people there became acquainted with European methods of cultivation the population was kept down in various ways and—

ROYAL ASSENT

6.16 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Colonial Loans Act, 1952.
2. Civil Contingencies Fund Act, 1952.
3. Public Works Loans Act, 1952.
4. New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Act, 1952.
5. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1952.
6. Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1952.

And the following Measure, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Union of Benefices (Disused Churches) Measure, 1952.

KENYA

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: While we were interrupted for a few minutes I reduced my speech, and I can now bring it to an early close.
I was referring to an old tribal custom about marriage, and another which to my mind is having a very serious economic effect and certainly a serious effect on population matters is that of children.


There were certain customs associated with children. First of all, when a woman had a child in the first year or so it was regarded as skin, blood and bones and it did not very much matter if it died in the hut. After what was called the second birth ceremony, the parents were frightened of the family spirit if the child should die in the hut. The child's spirit always remained in the African hut until it found another home.
The result of that was that after the second birth ceremony, if a child got ill through teething troubles or had serious illness like fits or any other of the illnesses due to the changing over from milk feeding to solid food, the mother, for the reason that she did not wish the child to die in the hut, took it from the warm hut into the cold. It would very likely die from pneumonia and exposure. That was an unfortunate tribal custom, but it
did—and I suppose people can understand this kind of belief—provide a way of keeping down the birth rate. At that time I think the death rate amongst children was about 60 per cent.
Another thing that happened was it was regarded as wrong that a woman should have a child until the first one had been weaned. That was a process that went on for two years, and, therefore, in the natural course of events it was unlikely that a woman would have more than one child in three years. That has gone by the board as a result of the impact of modern civilisation on these native people, for the Europeans have introduced different views on the matter. Formerly, because of the second birth ceremony, and the general view that no woman should have more than one child in three years, the birth rate was curbed, but now with better hospitals and health facilities both birth mortality and the ordinary mortality rates are very much improved. That has meant a considerable increase in the population.
I would like to sum up what I have said. I ask for more tolerance on the part of one race towards another. I speak on my own responsibility when I say that I think there was plenty of room there for improvement three years ago, but I believe there has been great improvement since. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has been out there recently, if he met somebody other than officials, might have seen an

improvement upon what I saw then. I have seen signs of improvement in visitors to this country since my visit, great improvement, so far as tolerance is concerned.
I hope that my right hon. Friend's suggestion of an all-racial conference can start, be maintained, and bring about results, and that the inquiry of the Royal Commission can be carried out in a friendly way among the various races that will give evidence before it. That is the kind of solution for which Kenya is so urgently calling at the present time.

6.37 p.m.

Sir David Campbell: In rising for the first time to speak in this House I crave the indulgence of hon. Members. I did not mean to speak so soon after taking my seat in the House. My reason for doing so is that during my 21 years' service in East Africa I formed a very deep affection for the peoples of East Africa, and I trust that I gained some experience of their problems.
I have been told that the two essential requirements of a maiden speech are that it should be short and that it should be non-contentious. I shall certainly make a short speech, Mr. Speaker, and I shall endeavour to make it non-controversial on this subject which, I trust all hon. Members will agree, should be approached in a non-party spirit.
I believe that all Members of the House and a great majority of the public of the United Kingdom agree in their desire to assist in the social, moral and economic advancement of the African peoples. There appears, however, to be considerable disagreement as to the method to be adopted in achieving that advancement and as to the timing of its progress.
No one would wish and no one would be foolish enough to attempt to stop the African's advancement towards a higher standard of living, a greater share in the control of his own affairs, and ultimate self-government, but there is a tendency for certain people with the highest ideals, which we all share, to regard this problem as in the nature of a 120-yard race over low hurdles. It would be much more appropriate to regard it as a steeplechase over many and difficult obstacles which can be overcome only by a sane and


sober approach, and not by what one might call "rushing our fences."
We cannot stop a river finding its way to the sea, but we should control its course so as to avoid sudden devastating floods which can do untold damage and suffering in the land through which it flows. I do not suggest for a moment that we should unduly delay solution of the present pressing questions in Kenya, such as industrial relations, development of land and soil erosion. I do not suggest that we should curb unduly the natural desire of the educated African to achieve or to accelerate progress towards self-government, but I invite the attention of hon. Members to the fact that this problem does not affect only the educated African. It affects millions of primitive and still in some ways almost savage peoples.
I say "peoples" because the African population of East Africa is not homogeneous. It consists of a very large number of tribes differing greatly in appearance, habits, social customs and language. They differ more widely than, for example, the inhabitants of South Italy differ from the people of Yorkshire. I regret that there is one common bond. The very great majority of the tribesmen of East Africa still have a deep and unshakeable belief in witchcraft. We owe a duty to these primitive peoples, which is to continue to educate them to improve their economic position.
As for the educated African, it is for us to see that he gets an opportunity to use well and properly, and, if possible, in the service of his fellow-Africans, the energy and knowledge which he has gained. We should also take care that he has scope to realise his proper ambition.
I have said that we all agree in desiring the advancement of Africans. I trust that we all equally agree on the absolute necessity of doing everything in our power to support the Kenya Government in suppressing the present abominable outbreak of savagery. Opinions may differ as to the underlying cause of the outbreak. When the outbreak is suppressed and when the women and children of all races in Kenya no longer go about in jeopardy of their lives, then will be the time for a thorough and careful investigation into the root cause of the

Mau Mau outbreak. In the meantime, I trust that no one, either within this House or outside it, will say or do anything which will render more difficult the task of the authorities in Kenya and, I would add, of the loyal, and moderate Africans, who are gallantly assisting the authorities.
I would end by referring to the most valuable and important document which has been made available to us, Sir Philip Mitchell's Despatch on "Land and Population in East Africa." As a man with a lifetime experience of East Africa and its problems, as a man with a deep love of all the inhabitants of East Africa, irrespective of colour or race, Sir Philip Mitchell has given us a most comprehensive and wisely drawn picture of the problems which require investigation.
A Royal Commission has been appointed and is about to function. Let us pray that great good will follow from their investigations. In the meantime, let us do and say nothing which may jeopardise that investigation or alienate the good will of the many persons of all races in Kenya who are anxious to work together in bringing prosperity and happiness to that land.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I think I am echoing the sentiments of everyone who has listened to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) in saying that we consider that the House is all the richer for the advantage of having the hon. Member with us. He was one of those civil servants for whom we have the greatest respect, because of their devotion towards those whose care is entrusted to them and he spoke from a depth of great experience. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member upon his speech which was short and instructive and from which I benefited. In particular, he said that this should not be treated as a party matter. We all realise in this House that the Colonial Empire is the responsibility of all hon. Members.
I have scarcely ever heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llannelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) deliver a better speech than he has done today, although he has delivered so many remarkable speeches in this House. And I have never heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies in better Parliamentary form. It does not follow


however, that we agree with either of the right hon. Gentlemen, though it is only right that I should pay tribute to them.
I wish, however, that in his opening speech the Secretary of State had not suggested that the opening words of the right hon. Member for Llanelly, and the opening words of this Motion, were not a sincere expression. There is not one of us who does not desire to sympathise most deeply with all the people of Kenya at the present time, not only the Europeans but the loyal Africans. We can well picture the terrifying anxiety, especially of those in the lonely farmsteads. Cruelty and violence are always wicked, but the acts that have been committed by the Mau Mau are indescribable in their frightfulness, in their savagery and barbarism.
We all sincerely agree that Mau Mau and similar societies should be eliminated. The right hon. Member for Llanelly not only said they must be, but that they will be eliminated and I am sure that is the express wish of everyone in the House. These barbarous crimes must be suppressed so that peace and order shall again be established.
We agree upon one further point, namely, that the suppression should be done by lawful action. Where we may possibly disagree is where the line will be drawn as to what is necessary to suppress this, and what goes beyond what is necessary. For example, the matter that most concerns my colleagues and myself is the punishment of innocent people in order that this crime may be suppressed.
The Secretary of State rightly began that part of his speech by saying that he abhorred the punishment of the innocent. It is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has said it and I believe that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government not only here but also in Kenya. However, I fear that when they say that this may be the most humane way of suppressing this form of crime, The remedy may be worse than the disease.
There is nothing that embitters people more than undeserved punishment, especially that which is inflicted not only upon innocent men but upon innocent women and children. We have all been shocked to read in ancient history the horrible things that happened when, because a city had been defended, the victor

put everyone within that city to the sword, even the women and the little children. We have said, "Well, that was in the past, we shall not find it in this age." Unfortunately, we have done so.
I am old enough to remember the South African war. I recollect that when I was fortunate enough to go to Cambridge in 1904, I was joined there by a number of Boers who had fought against us. There was not one of them who objected to what had happened in the war itself, but, equally, there was not one of them who did not speak bitterly about the way in which the women and children had been taken away from their homes and put into camps, a method which was described by the then leader of the Liberal Party as methods of barbarism.
What we were afraid of at that time was not merely that the punishment was excessive, but that it would leave a bitterness which nothing would eradicate. Unfortunately, that fear turned out to be true, that bitterness still remains and they remember it much more strongly than anything else. I know, therefore, that in spite of the statements uttered in all sincerity by the right hon. Gentleman, and in spite of the attitude and statements made by the Government of Kenya that this will only be used in small areas, that they dislike using it, that they have only used it twice and then in very small areas, nevertheless I wish it had been found better not to use it at all and to use some other method of getting at the criminal himself without punishing those who may be innocent.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be opposing communal punishment purely on the grounds of its inexpediency. Surely he should oppose it on the grounds of its unrighteousness and its wickedness.

Mr. Davies: I was coming to that, if the hon. and learned Member will allow me to make my own speech in my own way. I was pointing out that example first.
Perhaps this will satisfy the hon. and learned Member. Punishment of the innocent is not only a wrong which we all hate. Punishment of the innocent is immoral, and what is immoral can never be politically right. Therefore, I say that


I hope this form of punishment will not be used again.
"The Times" this morning, in its leading article, tried to draw a distinction between an area where the population were themselves in the main part of an unlawful assembly, and an area where the population, in the main, were loyal but did not assist in finding the criminal. It thought that perhaps the second case was one where this form of punishment should not be used.
I fail to see why any distinction should be made. The punishment of the innocent is wrong, whatever be the circumstances, and certainly it should not be used even where, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, it may turn out to be the most humane method at the moment. I emphasise that because of the bitterness that undoubtedly that form of punishment leaves behind it for a very long time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not all war collective punishment? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman developing a pacifist argument?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member might lead me now into another debate, but at the moment I am dealing with Kenya. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is not alone. I should think that every other Member of the House hates war just as much as he does, and he should not take it unto himself that he is the only one who hates it.
There is this also to be pointed out. These people are being punished because they do not help in finding the criminal or because they do not give information. Why should that happen when, according to the right hon. Gentleman, loyal members of the Kikuyu tribe, who are loyal and who are anxious to suppress Mau Mau, run a very grave danger if in any way they make their position clear? They might easily, apparently, suffer great harm and even run the danger of being murdered.
This is the position, apparently, under this collective punishment. If they do not come forward and give information, the Government punish them. If they do come forward and give information, the Mau Mau punish them. What are they to do?

Mr. John Rankin: Between the devil and the deep sea.

Mr. Davies: Which is the devil and which is the deep sea is another matter. I sincerely trust that this form of punishment will not be used again. I gather that the Government of Kenya, disliking it as much, I think, as I do, practically have come to the conclusion that it is not a form of punishment which should be used.
I turn now to the legislation. I dislike intensely the Emergency Regulations that have been issued. They have been issued this year 1952. They have been issued in respect of this situation which has arisen now, but they are issued under the Emergency Powers Order in Council of 1939, an Order in Council which was passed at that time to deal with an entirely different situation; namely, when we were fighting for our own safety, lives and liberty, and were standing up against the threat of Hitler and all his myrmidons. It was something that we were prepared at that time to agree to, but it is said that these Regulations have been made now, in 1952, under a wartime Regulation which was made as long ago as 1939.
The powers given under that Order are extraordinarily wide, as wide as could have been devised at the time when the whole world was in danger of being defeated by a lunatic. There is power to arrest and detain a person without trial, without charge, or without anything, and keep him there for any length of time. There is prohibition of all public meetings, prohibition of publications and power to take possession of any property. All of these are dependent upon merely this: that the Government of Kenya come to the conclusion that they are necessary for the safety of the whole of Kenya.

Mr. Rankin: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the Regulations issued under the 1952 procedure are even more vicious than the Regulations under the 1939 procedure? While the latter gave the right of appeal to persons who were detained, that is not permitted in the Regulations now introduced.

Mr. Davies: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, although I should not like to be absolutely certain. I have only


read the Regulations as they have appeared in the Library, and I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman is right. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Regulation 18B and said that one of the Regulations was rather similar to it.

Mr. Lyttelton: The comparison I made was between 18B in this country in the war and 17D in Malaya. I said that they were the same thing.

Mr. Davies: I do not think so. Although I dislike 18B and protested against it, at any rate, under 18B, after a man had been detained he would be brought up before a tribunal presided over by one of our most learned judges.

Mr. Lyttelton: The same judicial process will be instituted in Kenya—

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Not for appeals.

Mr. Lyttelton: —for those detained under this thing—that is, the 18B people. The same process of review, to which I referred, for people who cannot be brought to trial will be instituted in Kenya, but there has not yet been time for the necessary period to elapse.

Mr. Davies: That is exactly what I wanted to know, whether even these people have the same advantages as was given in this country under 18B. I certainly agree that that makes a difference, because I understood that they were merely detained at the will of the Government simply because they came within the scope of the Regulation.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman something further? One objected very strongly to 18B, even with the condition that people were brought before a judge and two other assessors sitting with him. We said all along that the right thing was not to hold people in this way, but that if they had committed a crime the right thing to do was to charge them with it. Surely the case is all the stronger when, as here, our own people apparently, according to the right hon. Gentleman, are attacking the Government and are anxious to bring it down.
If that is true, they are guilty of a crime, so why, therefore, should they be detained merely under a form similar to 18B? Why should they not be brought before the court like anybody else and

charged with that? If they are guilty they will be punished: if not, then they must be released. But the powers given to the Government, and even to district officers, by these Regulations are far and away greater than I should imagine are required to bring back peace.
One is anxious not merely about the restoration of law and order. One is more anxious about the future of the people of Kenya as a whole. Obviously, in Kenya for all time the peoples will be drawn partly from Europeans—in the main from this country—partly from Indians, partly from Arabs and, in the main, from Africans. What we should be anxious about is that all these people should live together in peace and harmony. One cannot expect peace and harmony if there is in the hearts and minds of any section of these people envy or jealousy which will, of course, lead to hatred. One cannot get peace and harmony if people think that they are not being treated justly or fairly either politically or economically.
I wish to deal with one matter mentioned in the early part of the speech of the Minister. He referred once again to his statement that he believed that the organisation called Mau Mau was a political organisation; that it had not arisen from anything to do with the economic position of the people of Kenya; and that it was an anti-Christian, anti-European organisation which was determined to get rid of the white man. That may have been in the minds of those who started this organisation. Nobody would have any sympathy with them. But would they have had the effect that they have had and the support that they have had, unless there was something else far and away deeper than that which had moved these other people maybe not to join them in their crimes, but not to expose them to punishment because they committed these crimes?
I cannot understand what has been happening and why these matters were not attended to long ago. They could not have arisen within the last 12 months or within the last five years. Something has been going on for a considerable time. The Minister made a very strong defence on the charge brought against him that he had not acted quickly enough since he received the despatch of Sir Philip Mitchell. But I noticed in that


document—and I take it that this was in the original despatch—a paragraph which deals with the growth of population and local overcrowding.
It is the growth of population which has led to overcrowding, to land hunger, to poverty and probably to low wages. All these matters have led to the economic difficulties which now confront us. In the despatch there is the heading:
Growth of population and local overcrowding.
Then the document says:
I have previously written about these matters, and would invite you to refer in particular to my despatch No. 109 of the 11th September, 1945.
What has happened about that despatch? The document then refers to despatches of 17th April, 1946, and 2nd June, 1950, and to other documents that have been written since 1945.
In view of this, I think that we are all to blame that we did not take up this matter much earlier. Not only can I say that perhaps the present Government, who have been in office only a very short time, might have acted much more quickly, but the same must apply to those who preceded them. It may be that this matter goes back as far as 1933.
These are the matters which, without a doubt, have led to dissatisfaction and to poverty which, in its turn, leads to jealousy, envy and a desire for betterment which cannot be obtained. And then, of course, comes violence which we all detest. These are the matters which I feel ought to be dealt with promptly instead of waiting for a Royal Commission to deal with them.
I now come to the saddest feature of all, and that is this question of the colour bar which persists. As the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) have said, we have uprooted the ancient beliefs of the African. His old traditions, his old customs have gone. The old respect for the headman has gone and new ideas have been accepted. We have preached Christianity throughout Africa, but the trouble is that we have not acted up to the principles of Christianity in our relations with the African. We have treated him throughout as if he were a being different from us, even though we realise that the African was there when we went

there and that we cannot possibly live in Africa without the assistance, the co-operation and even the good will of the African.
What is said nowadays when trouble arises, as, inevitably, it will arise, when a distinction is drawn between one man and another merely on the ground of colour? Though the coloured man has received the same education and training, a distinction is drawn between him and the white even with regard to wages. What is said nowadays when this arises? It is said that the time has come when we should have a partnership between the African and the Englishman or the European. Not much has been stressed about partnership in the past.
It must be realised that the African, wherever he may be, has a high sense of his own personal dignity, and I am sorry to say that for generations that seems to have been flouted by the European, wherever he may be. It was said to me recently by one who has had an even longer experience than the hon. Member for Belfast, South that what the African seeks far more than anything else is fellowship. I wish that we would regard that as our guiding light in order to bring peace and harmony. The trouble is that not only is the colour bar introduced as between African and European, it is introduced as between the Indian in Africa and the European.
The Indian comes to this country and he is allowed to go to any school. The great Prime Minister of India himself went to the same school as our Prime Minister, and what an honoured pupil of that great school he was; but an Indian who goes to Kenya is not allowed in the same school as a European. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has said that he is anxious to see an end to the colour bar. I am sure that he is sincere. The best way in which to put an end to it is to bring these people together as quickly as possible. I should have thought that the best way of removing the trouble was to bring the children together in the same schools. I cannot imagine anything which would embitter a boy more than to find that he was treated on a different level from another boy merely because of his colour. He will grow up with a feeling of inferiority complex which is bound to make itself felt somewhere.


I know that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned sufficiently about this matter to be considering the experiment of starting nursery schools in which they shall all combine, but what is happening now is that white boys and girls are kept separate, as if some—to use Kipling's term—were of a "lesser breed." Nothing is more likely to cause damage throughout the whole of Africa than a policy of that character.
We are anxious that there shall be this fellowship and a realisation that Europeans, Asians, Africans and Arabs must live together in this place. We shall only get that when they respect one another and realise that other people equally respect them. At present, we have not got that situation. It ought to be the aim of this Government and of their successors and everybody else to bring about that true relationship between human beings which will lead to peace and good order throughout Africa.

7.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: I would not have ventured to intervene in this debate save that I have had the experience of being the Chairman of a Royal Commission in Africa and know something about the problems which beset such a body. I begin by saying that I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) is right in saying that it is a mistake to attempt to put too much on the shoulders of a Royal Commission.
A Royal Commission is of necessity a body which will take a long time to consider these problems, and it is necessarily rather limited in its outlook. Here, and here alone, lies responsibility; here is the body which must consider these matters. I have been struck, as I always am in the House of Commons, by the enormous range of knowledge and experience possessed in the House. I have been sitting between two hon. Friends, one of whom was for eight years resident in Kenya and, I believe, leaves for Kenya tomorrow morning. The other, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell), who delighted us all with his maiden speech, has returned to this country after 21 years of service in that part of the world.
I am sure that we here must accept to some extent the reproach made to us all by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that these events are because we have failed. not because any particular Government has failed, and certainly not because a Government which has been in power for only 12 months has failed. I thought the defence of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary was massive and convincing. On the question of Sir Philip Mitchell's Despatch, any of us who have had anything to do with government would know that receiving a document like this is a matter which requires long and careful consideration in the office and then long and careful consideration by those who will be affected by it—by the Governors of other territories. After that is all over and the green light given to go ahead, they are the ones who will have to operate such changes if they are made.
From my experience, the right hon. Gentleman was most expeditious in the collection of the personnel of the Royal Commission which is about to go out there. These are not appointments which can be made simply at the drop of a handkerchief. The best men are always the busiest. They have to withdraw themselves from other engagements and commitments, and they are not easy to get. I think that the collection of the Royal Commission to the extent which has been indicated to the House this afternoon, is certainly an indication that no time has been lost in getting it together.
Of course the Royal Commission can deal with those things which are referred to it, but it will not be possible to deal with many of the wider subjects. These we must review here in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. South said a very true thing when he said that this is not a 120 yards hurdle race but a steeple-chase with many gigantic and tremendous obstacles which we shall not get over easily and which it may well be we shall not get over at all. We are dealing with the impact of Western civilisation on a very primitive society. That is the real and fundamental problem on both sides of Africa.
I happen to know West Africa rather better than I know East Africa, of which I have had little personal experience. In East Africa the impact was tremendous on a more nomadic, and more or less


empty country. The impact there was far heavier than on the closely settled and, in some ways, highly cultured peasant States of West Africa. We are dealing with a country which, as Sir Philip Mitchell indicated in his despatch, has a possible annual population increase of 2 per cent. That means that the population may double itself every 35 years, within the lifetime of some of the younger Members of this House. In their lifetime they would see five million people in Kenya territory become 10 million. The problem of how that is to be dealt with will tax the utmost resources of everyone of us here and in the African territories.
A dangerous fallacy I seem to observe in the debate is the continual reference to "the African people." The proper phrase was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South, "African peoples." They are widely different and, in many cases, hostile. This trouble is affecting one section and one section only, the Kikuyu. It is interesting to note that if it were economic pressure alone which was causing the trouble one would expect it to affect all the peoples; but that is not so. If is affecting one particular section, and not merely that particular section in that particular area but one of two tribes which live very closely and are intermingling and interlocking.
One tribe has not been mentioned this afternoon, but it is of vital importance. It is the Masai. One of the things which brought us into East Africa was the warfare between the Masai and Kikuyu. The position of the Masai was very different then from what it is now, while the position of the Kikuyu was also very different.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not suggest that the Masai are suffering from the same economic problems as the Kikuyu?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is what I am saying, the Masai have themselves worked out a system of agriculture, which I am going to refer to, a pastoral system, which has insulated them from many of the problems of the Kikuyu, although they have many problems of their own. The intervention of the hon. Member reinforces what I have said; this is a matter of peoples.
This is the problem of the multinational State. In the 19th century we grappled with and solved the problem of the mono-national State, sometimes by the extermination of other elements within its boundaries. That seems to me a poor way of solving the problem. That was the blunt axe which fell on India causing the separation, with Pakistan on the one side and India on the other, and the Punjab carved into a partition which made the whole land flow with blood. That surely cannot be our solution in East Africa. The problem of the multi-national State is a new problem, the problem with which we are grappling in Malaya and the problem with which we and other people are grappling in other parts of the world.

Miss Jennie Lee: We have it here.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is quite clear that we were a multi-national State in Britain. We have succeeded in coming to a modus vivendi one with another over a long period of time, but only over a long period of time. We also have had the advantage, and the disadvantage of incomers. If the Roman Senate had been reviewing affairs in Britain, as we are now reviewing affairs in Kenya, some very bitter things might well have been said about the conduct of the members of the Legions. Yet everyone admits that we are better off for the Legions having been here, and for all their efforts in making roads and for the cities and the laws which they brought with them. So also is East Africa better off, and not worse off, for the members of the European community. If the Africans drive out or exterminate the Europeans, they will be by so much weaker, and will be by so much lessening their chances of prosperity just as, if we had succeeded in exterminating all the foreign elements in our country, we would be very much weaker as a people.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? Is he suggesting that, because the Highlands were never conquered by the Romans, they are the worse off for that?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will answer the hon. Gentleman in one sentence: Where are the Highlanders going just now but to lands which have been occupied


and settled by people who underwent the Roman tradition?
Therefore, do not let us ignore the part which immigrant elements have played in building up States. Let us remember that much of what is being said tonight could have been said about the colonisation of other parts of the world, and yet, had this resulted in the abandonment of those enterprises, the world would have been so much the poorer. What we have to find here is a way in which these new experiments will be successful; not abandon them because they are too difficult.
Of course, there has been delay in the desired progress, but I do not think the supporters of the Motion can entirely dissociate themselves from at least a share in the blame that comes from delay. There has been an accusation about collective punishment. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery eloquently pleaded that theme. But my right hon. Friend was able to quote the fact that such punishment was supported by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, in their period as a Government, with occasional minority protests, and not only supported, but imposed, reimposed and defended. They cannot bring an accusation now against my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. No; what we want to do is to place the country in such a position that it is not necessary to impose these punishments, and that is what we are seeking to do.
We know that these things are deplorable; as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) indicated, all measures of force and violence are deplorable, but it is very easy to bring this matter to a reductio ad absurdum, that no compulsion should ever be attempted at all. This is an assembly of government, where the process of government is carried on, and, if we do not believe in government, then let us get out of the House of Commons. The House of Commons exists to govern, and it must, therefore, accept the responsibilities of government, amongst which are some rough and ready measures which none of us would like to impose if we could possibly get away from them.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Give us some suggestions.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I certainly will. The difficulty about multi-national States is not to be solved by simple reliance upon majorities only. I think that, where there is no clear majority in the State, the State will need to adopt a different form or organisation to the organisation which it adopts when there is a clear, homogeneous nation. These minorities have a fear that each of them will be attacked and digested by the others, either singly or in combination. The Africans fear that we might try to force our authority on them. There is also—and do not let us ignore it—the fear of the settler that, either here or elsewhere, plans may be made for his complete liquidation or extrusion from the land which, after all, he is doing his best to cultivate, from a place where he rightly knows that he has things to teach to those amongst whom he is living, which, without him, they will not learn.
It is not a simple question of majority rule and universal suffrage which, at some foreseeable date, should be imposed throughout the whole of Kenya. A majority consisting of one tribe, which, it may be, would try to vote down or eliminate the other elements, is not a matter of practical politics. Let us take the case of the Masai. They will not admit that position. They have, after all, lived as conquerors in that land not so long ago; they are strong, and might well attempt to bring it about again, and it may well be a successful attempt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South mentioned the difference between the two nations. But do we realise how different they are? I myself was chairman of a committee of investigation, the technical part of which was carried out by someone whose name will be well known and respected on the other side as well as on this—Dr. (as he then was) John Boyd-Orr, now Lord Boyd-Orr, in conjunction with Dr. Gilko, the head of the medical service in East Africa. Actually, the Masai man is not only five inches taller and 23 lb. heavier than the Kikuyu, but is also 50 per cent. stronger, in his muscular strength, tested by a dynamometer. He is not going to accept the position simply that because there are perhaps 10 times more Kikuyu, therefore the Kikuyu are to be allowed to wipe him out of existence or absorb him into their tribal system.


The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said some rather rash and violent words about some slang abusive terms which he had heard used by settlers about the Kikuyu. He might well have heard hard phrases used about Europeans if he had listened round African camp-fires. He might have heard further that abuse of other people is not confined to that of settlers about the Kikuyu. I have heard some pretty rough things said about me in Clydeside at the time of a General Election. I really do think that it is unnecessary and undesirable, and below the level of this great debate, to bring in phrases like that, which might do infinite damage and cause an infinite embittering of the position. Actually, the Masai think their ways are best; no doubt the Kikuyu also think their ways are best, and is one to be surprised that the Europeans may also think that their ways are best? Our task is to endeavour to bring them together.
The constructive suggestion which I am making is that we make a mistake if we believe that, by melting all these peoples down and making an amalgam of them, we shall bring peace and prosperity to the peoples of Kenya. After we made this scientific investigation, the Colonial Office was terribly preoccupied by the disputes between Jew and Arab, and, later, a great many of these investigations came to an end with the war. This was a great pity. Because a higher standard of living, of course, can only come from a higher standard of production, and that, in turn, can only come, in the case of the Kikuyu, from a higher standard of health. The figures given in the first World War of the call-up for carriers indicated that, of 16,700 Kikuyu men called up, 10,900 were immediately rejected as unfit, and, in their march to Nairobi, only 100 miles, another 17 per cent. had to be dropped out.
People speak about wages, but the wages are, in many cases, inevitably commensurate with the effort. A man who is as unfit as that is not able to put out the amount of effort which will produce the adequate economic quantities of products out of which the wages can be paid. It was a great pity that these researches into the public health were not proceeded with further, because I am sure that the Kikuyu economy based, as hon. Gentle-

men know, so largely upon starch, as compared with the Masai economy which is based so largely on proteins, produced a race with certainly a lower power of work and an inferiority complex out of proportion—

Mr. Julian Snow: Scott's porridge?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Scots eat more than porridge—[Interruption.] I am merely saying that the high starch intake of the Kikuyu is at least co-related with the high rate of sickness I have given which causes an inability to produce the immense amount of continuous effort which modern industry or mechanised agriculture demands. If we cannot get the production we shall not have the supplus out of which to secure the higher standard of life we desire.

Mr. Rankin: We need Socialism.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member says we need Socialism. But these tribes are socialist tribes. However, they are flocking away from Socialism into a form of capitalism because it gives them better results. It provides no solution for these troubled conditions if we consider the Africans as a race of private enterprisers who are being over-run by the hardy Socialists of the White Highlands. Hon. Members should not try to transplant the conceptions which we have in this country solely and just as they stand to the plateau of East Africa.
I speak here as an unrepentant negrophile. I speak as an admirer of the Gold Coast; I speak as one who had the honour of being Chairman of the Commission which founded two university colleges; in Accra and Ibadan. I bring this forward, partly through vainglory, because I am very proud of it, but largely because I do not wish what I am saying to be regarded as the meaningless bletherings of a blimp who is unable to recognise the great good there is in Africa and the great abilities there are in the Africans. John African must have his house; he must have the place where he lives, "John African lives here"; and for that place at any rate I would be wholly in favour of apartheid. I am sure the West African apartheid is a good thing. It is a good thing that white men are unable to build there or buy land and that there is a careful separation maintained by the Government between


white and black. That is, we have there the possibility of a monolithic black State.
But there are areas in which that cannot possibly apply. Sir Walter Raleigh said—and it is one of the truest things ever said—that there is no more shameful thing in life than to desert a plantation. By a plantation he meant a colony where our own people had gone out to settle. People speak of the Indians in East Africa, but Nehru has not deserted the Indians. Gandhi did not desert the Indians. We do not find deputies in the Indian Congress saying that everything the Indians do in East Africa is wrong, and that everything the Africans do is right. They defend there own people and respect them and stick up for them. We too must remember that after all the settlers are men we ought to understand and do our best to respect. They are certainly living under conditions of great strain and tension. Yet if Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen had not gone out to live in these conditions elsewhere in the world, we in this country would be in a poor way today, and this Chamber of ours would have few and mean things to discuss.
This is another step in a great adventure in which our race is continually engaged. I believe it is an adventure in which our race can succeed; not merely an adventure of material things, but an adventure of the spirit. I believe we have things to show to the African which the African will not receive from others. It is true that with Western civilisation we carry disease, death and problems. But disease, death and problems were not introduced into East Africa when we landed there. They existed in East Africa long before we came, and if we went away they would still remain.
This is a new thing. We are trying to resolve the problem of the multi-national State. Let us brace ourselves to it. Certainly let us continue to discuss it and to argue about it and try to expound it here in various ways on the Floor of this House. Because here is where the responsibility lies and to this place again it will return. We cannot shuffle off our responsibilities, either by saying it is the fault of the other fellow, or the fault of the last Government, or the present Government. Nor can we expect a Commission which will come down from heaven and give us the solution to all

these problems. This is the anvil on which to strike the iron. The iron is hot; well, that is the time to hammer it. Let us strike, then, and hammer out here a ploughshare which will till the world.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: One of the remarks made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was that he thought the speech of the Colonial Secretary was both massive and convincing. I quite agree that it was massive; I am not sure that it was convincing.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said another thing with which I agree. He hinted—I hope I am interpreting him correctly—that the Commission would be a long time coming; that it might be a long while before they made their report, and that the responsibility rested with this House. I agree with that. If what the Minister has said tonight, when he admitted all the disabilities apparent in East Africa and Kenya in particular—the difficulties of wages, racialism, lack of education and the rest—means that he proposes to deal with those things without waiting for the report of the Commission, so much the better for the people of Kenya and East Africa generally. But I am a bit doubtful even about that. I have been in this House a fairly long time and I have heard the Tories give lip-service to that sort of thing time after time. The details quoted tonight by the right hon. Gentleman show that they have not much—

Mr. Hale: Would my hon. Friend allow me to say that these were precisely the proposals which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and I put to the European, African, Asian and Arab Members of the Legislative Council three or four weeks ago, and which the Colonial Secretary rejected peremptorily in every statement he made.

Mr. Paling: The right hon. Gentleman has intimated that he will accept them. If he will I hope he will go on with them. But the history of the Tory Party does not give me much confidence in that respect. They have made promises and paid lip-service to this time after time, and, in view of the fact that we have been in Kenya for over 50 years, the statements he made tonight will make pretty sorrowful reading, and indicate that little or nothing has been done.


He was also rather scornful about our Motion, about collective punishment and the rest of it, and went on to point out that we on this side have been guilty of the same thing. If we have, I still argue that two wrongs do not make a right. My right hon. Friend and the Colonial Secretary were right when they argued against collective punishment. There is no justification for it. The innocent ought not to be punished because somebody else is guilty, and that is what it amounts to. I doubt whether the results achieved are worth it. It is quite true that if one uses the kind of force that has been used in this instance one may quickly suppress a disturbance, but if one creates an ill-feeling that may last for years and years, it is a disadvantage to administer collective punishment rather than individual punishment of those who are guilty.
The things which the Colonial Secretary did in order to suppress this disturbance were pretty formidable. When any Member of the Tory Party—particularly a Member of the Tory Government—gets up and says he is in favour of law and order, I am frightened. I remember that they were in favour of law and order in 1926. I remember that they patted our miners on the back because they played football with the police and because they were quiet. They were good people and sporting people so long as they were quiet while they starved to death; but the moment they rose up in indignation because of the hardship imposed upon them, and were guilty of an infraction of the law, all the might of the Tory Party and the Government came down upon them. They are doing the same thing with the Kikuyus in this instance.
We had the Navy there; we had the Army there; we had the police and the Air Force there—all armed with modern weapons against people who, at the best, were armed with spears. One would have thought that that was a pretty formidable challenge which was sufficient to suppress the disturbance.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: Is the right hon. Member saying that he favours disorder?

Mr. Paling: The hon. and learned Member might be able to sort it out later on.
One would have thought that that was a pretty formidable armoury and that the disturbance would have been suppressed in that way; but scores of things were done in addition. I believe that 13,000 people were put in confinement. That is the minimum number, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough indicates that there were many more. Women and children were torn from their homes without any preliminary planning being carried out. What happened to those people I do not know. There was a suppression of meetings everywhere and the taking away of the cattle and even the bicycles of the Kikuyu people.
That is a pretty formidable list, and when the Colonial Secretary tries to get away from his ruthlessness by saying to the Labour Party, "You are another," it is not quite good enough and it is a pretty poor argument.
Now I want to deal with the question of the land. I have heard the land problem in Kenya being discussed ever since I came into this House. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) put down a Question this week on the subject. My mind goes back to the 1920s, when a Colonial Secretary—a Tory—made a statement to the effect that the interests of the natives in their country should be paramount. The Tory Party have been in power most of the time since then. Are the interests of the natives paramount? They have not been paramount at any time. Would the Colonial Secretary have been able to read out that list of disabilities if that policy had been carried out? The interests of the natives have been ignored and I suspect that his promises tonight will go in the same direction.
Before he sat down he accused this party of comforting the Queen's enemies. That is another of the things the Tory Party are always fond of saying. What we are more concerned about is comforting the Queen's friends who, because of their lowly position in these backward countries, need our support more than anybody else. The support of the Tory Party has nearly always gone to those who were already strong. I throw the challenge back in the right hon. Gentleman's teeth.
This land question is a paramount one. A week or so ago I sat in my house


looking at the television. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) appeared in a programme with a representative of the white settlers and a representative of the Africans, and they were discussing this question. The white settler had evidently been very well briefed. He put forward the same argument, that the Kikuyus ought to have been thankful that we went to Africa because we gave them more land than they originally possessed. That is a curious argument when one remembers that we have no right to be in Africa from the point of view of being natives of that country, and yet we go out there and tell the natives how much they shall have of the land that they have been born and bred in and which belongs to them.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that he has any right here?

Mr. Paling: The land question remains the biggest problem. One has only to read the report issued by Sir Philip Mitchell—which is a very good report—in order to understand how important it is. While it may be true that the Kikuyu were given back or were allowed to have practically all the land they previously occupied, it is also true that their population has increased enormously. At the present time there are about one million Kikuyu. I think the whole of these Africans, with the exception of those in the Northern Territory, occupy about 52,000 square miles. Just over 30,000 Europeans occupy 16,000 square miles.

Mr. F. Harris: Twelve thousand.

Mr. Paling: There are about 3,000 settlers, and they have the best land. I admit that the African system of cultivation is behindhand and that something has been done by the settlers to try to improve it, but one thing the settlers have been adamant about ever since they went in is that the White Highlands belong to them and in no circumstances are they going to give up any of it.

Mr. Hale: And it is the Africans who do the work in the White Highlands.

Mr. Paling: It is the Africans who do the work in the White Highlands. Can one wonder that the Kikuyu are upset and feel strongly about this particular issue?
Because of the nature of the land and their method of cultivation, they are

utterly impoverished and they have to send their menfolk out to work in Nairobi and other places. Their menfolk go out and are separated from their wives and families for long periods. Can that be a good thing for a society like that? Can it be right to have a system of industry which separates the family in such a manner?
That is bad in itself, and in addition the Kikuyu and the Africans generally so love the land that, in spite of the fact that they have to go out to earn, they always try their utmost to retain some small portion of land at least among their tribe to which they can return in their old age. Is there any wonder that people living in such conditions feel keenly about such matters? The Colonial Secretary stated—or rather, he indicated, because he seems to be trying to draw back now—that the Mau Mau trouble has nothing to do with economic circumstances. That is the very last word. Hon. Members opposite had better realise the position. If the Colonial Secretary will deal with the problem I have put to him, all honour to him; but I doubt whether he will. We shall see.
I come next to the question of wages. Hon. Members opposite have mentioned this also, and the White Paper itself is pretty good on the point. I admit that this is a low wage economy. May I refer hon. Members to a Question reported in HANSARD on 18th June this year?
MR. H. HYND asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what negotiating machinery exists for regulating the wages of African workers on the coffee plantations in Kenya.
MR. LYTTELTON: Wages of African coffee workers are negotiated at an annual meeting of the representative planters and growers and chief headmen from labour producing areas, under the chairmanship of the District Commissioner concerned.

Mr. Hale: Wages of 3s. a week.

Mr. Paling: Where is the trade union? Who negotiates for them? Is there any wonder that wages are low, even for such an economy as that, when there is no direct representative to argue their point of view?

Mr. F. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what happens to the funds which have been collected by the trade unions in African society?

Mr. Hale: There speaks a Tory.

Mr. Paling: My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) asked another Question. He asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
what was the price per ton of coffee in Kenya during each of the last three years; and what were the rates of wages for African workers on the coffee plantations during the same period.
MR. LYTTELTON: The average prices per ton paid to producers during the last three completed seasons have been £161, £350 and £374 respectively. The minimum monthly rates of pay for permanent employees (excluding the value of housing and rations) were 17s. in 1950, 23s. 68 cents in 1951, and 24s. 25 cents this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 101.]

Mr. Hale: That is per month.

Mr. Harris: rose—

Mr. Paling: I do not think I can be accused of discourtesy if I do not give way. I have given way four times.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) must not interrupt if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way.

Mr. Paling: I am not complaining. Look what happened: the price has risen in three years from £161 to £374 per ton—an increase of nearly 130 per cent. In the same three years, wages have risen by about 40 per cent.

Mr. Hale: Not as much.

Mr. Paling: What kind of a fair deal do hon. Members call that? The Colonial Secretary admits that wages are low and says he will do something about it. We shall see what he does—and, again, I very much doubt it.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what wages were paid to the Africans on the Kongwa groundnut scheme?

Mr. Paling: I dare say equally as good and probably better. Let me deal with another matter—the trade union aspect. There is a tendency at the moment—and I think it is bound to come—for people to have to leave the land. It is a peasant system which neither produces enough nor offers enough land in the future to go round. In any event, I am pretty certain that the number of industrial workers will increase; the industry there

will need workers. If that is to be the case, I am very anxious that there should be sufficient trade unions to look after the interests of these people.
I am old enough to remember when trade unions were not very popular with hon. Members opposite. I suspect that they have not been too popular with the Europeans in Kenya, either. I have a little note here from the Colonial Report, Kenya, 1950, which reads:
Trade unionism was at a very low ebb at the beginning of the year due to the influence of a small clique of Asian and African agitators who were endeavouring to obtain control of the existing unions through affiliation to a Trade Union Congress so as to control all organised labour for political ends.
That reminds me of my early days. I went up to Doncaster in 1912, when I was a young Socialist, and at the first meeting I started to talk Socialism. Immediately a few of the Tories and Liberals who were in the unions at that stage got to their feet and protested against politics in trade unionism. We have it here, in Kenya, 40 years later. The Report continues:
The detention and subsequent deportation of the leader, and the dissolution of the Trade Union Congress, led to a general strike in Nairobi, in April, which lasted for some ten days.

Mr. F. Harris: Who was the Secretary of State then?

Mr. Paling: Shades of David Kirkwood. I think that in spite of their professions, at least a minority of hon. Gentlemen opposite might welcome the dissolution of the Trades Union Congress even now. This is what happened, and it merely shows the necessity of a strong trade union movement in Kenya if all these disabilities which are being discussed tonight are to disappear.
Here is another quotation, relating to the colour bar. It is from Mr. Leakey's book, which has been quoted at times today. He writes as follows—and I quote it because I do not think it is possible to better the language:
Yet another problem to be tack led is the vexed problem of the colour-bar. There are many Africans in East Africa today, not a few of whom are Kiyuyu, who are just as capable of proper behaviour in hotels and other places as most Europeans, and who are better mannered than some of these. It is virtually impossible, today, for an East African native, although he may have spent three years at Oxford or some other British university, where he suffered from no disability due


to his skin colour, to have a meal in a public hotel or restaurant used by Europeans, even if he is accompanied by a European friend. This is a stupid attitude and one which is a source of much discontent. Clearly any hotel or other place should be able to reserve the right of admission, but the discrimination should be not on a basis of skin colour, but on behaviour.
My last word is about education. If the country is to be partially industrialised, we need skilled labour. There are a few of them today, and one of the reasons why there are so few is that education does not exist, except in a very small way. I think it is still the case, even in the education of children, that the question of fees and the cost of uniforms enter into the matter. Is it not time, after 50 years' occupation of this country, that we should at least put into operation as good an education project as it is possible for us to do on behalf of the children first, and second, on behalf of people who need technical education, whose skill will be wanted if the country is to lift the standard of life for its people?
I have listened to the Colonial Secretary. He says he will remove all these disabilities. I hope that when he comes to deal with them he will deal with them with the same energy, the same vitality, the same speed, the same ruthlessness as he showed when he tried to suppress Mau Mau.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I do not know how large a contribution towards an improvement in the situation in Kenya, which we all so much desire, will have been caused by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wilfred Paling). I can assure him I have not brought any books to read, but he could have read three or four pages about the colour bar without getting us any further at all. I like the colour bar no better than he does, but the mere fact that he reads long diatribes against the colour bar does not, I think, advance us very far. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him. I really did not know he was capable of it, but I certainly could not imitate his manner nor rise to the high level of his style. I shall begin straight away by saying something about the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
I am bound to admit that it is an extremely impressive thing for a young Member of this House to see how the politely worded Motion of the Opposition could turn into such an eloquent and easy to listen to indictment of the Government. I, personally, regret very much indeed—I regret it more than anything else he said—the fact that he announced, before he heard the Colonial Secretary, that he would divide the House tonight. I fancy that it is quite possible that if he had heard my right hon. Friend first he would not have come to the same decision as he did.
I gain some satisfaction from the fact that the terms of the Motion show that there is a great deal in common between the two sides of the House on this issue. Certainly, none of us can possibly disagree with the first sentence of the Motion. We cannot help, all of us, being conscious of the strain and peril not only of the European settlers, but also of the Africans in Kenya who are anxious to maintain law and order and try to resist the outrages of the Mau Mau. There cannot be anything but grief for the chiefs who were murdered; nothing but admiration for the courage of Mr. Mathu; and nothing but admiration for the kind of courage vividly portrayed in those letters from a settler in Kenya published in the "Sunday Times" two days ago.
I do not think many people on this side of the House would quarrel with the expression of grave concern in the second sentence of the Motion. We cannot help feeling grave concern about the infliction of collective punishment in Kenya or anywhere else, but I cannot help feeling myself that there are many occasions—we have all had to face them—many occasions on which we have to try to choose the lesser of two evils. When the Liberal Party's leader was speaking the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) pointed out the difficulty of war. Now, it was quite plain to all of us in 1939 that we had to choose what we believed the lesser of two evils. War is certainly evil; war is certainly immoral; but it was, I believe—and I believe most of us believed—the lesser of the two evils at that time.
We have to choose between collective punishment of the population in a certain area as the lesser of two evils in this


particular case, and, as I see it, by refusing to adopt this method of collective punishment we should have been exposing innocent people, just as innocent as the people we are punishing, to graver and additional risks of being probably murdered. That, I believe, was the situation we had to face when we decided that this collective punishment was possible.
I will leave out for the moment the next part of the Motion that regrets the delay in setting up the Royal Commission, and the question of the interim report. I cannot help feeling that my right hon. Friend has given an extremely reasonable reply to that desire. Then there is the desire for something to mitigate grievances. Well, I do not think anyone who has any sort of knowledge of the Kenyan situation can deny the urgency of lessening existing grievances.
There has been a good deal of argument as to whether the Mau Mau is the child of grievances or whether grievances are the food on which it thrives. Whatever is right—I do not know whether one or the other is correct—but whatever is right about that, it is surely not in doubt that the grievances do exist, and, therefore, I do not think any of us on this side of the House would quarrel for one moment with the suggestion from the Opposition that we must—in fact, my right hon. Friend outlined the kind of methods he was going to use—take all the steps we possibly can to mitigate grievances. But, as he pointed out and as other people have pointed out, too, there is no doubt at all that the present outbreak of violence by Mau Mau will very seriously delay the application of any remedy, because we have to spend time and money in overcoming it.
I spoke, at the beginning, of the responsibility we in this House of Commons bear for the situation in Kenya and for the lives of those people who live there. We bear it as Members of the House of Commons. We bear it on behalf of the 50 million people who live in the United Kingdom. We bear it because, 50 years ago, the Government of this country took a decision to encourage white people to settle in Kenya. That decision, as I see it, has imposed on all of us a solemn moral duty to use all our wit and our imagination, our ingenuity and energy and courage, to find

a solution to the various grave and difficult problems which face us there at the present time—to help Kenya, first of all, to solve her seemingly intractable economic problems, and, secondly, to try to bring about a continual development of the racial relationships between Africans, Asians and Europeans.
As I see it, it is not only a moral obligation. It is an obligation because the growing acuteness of the economic situation in Kenya is, to a very large extent, the indirect consequence of our presence in Kenya. Sir Philip Mitchell, in his excellent and lucid despatch, pointed out the removal of various checks on population which had resulted from European settlement in Kenya. If we can claim the credit, as I believe we can, for removing these population checks, such as disease and tribal warfare, we must, at the same time, be prepared to face the consequences.
We know the consequences. They are starkly represented in the fact that the population is 5½ million now and will be 11 million in the 1980s. We must face this situation, which is gradually becoming clearer. I am quite certain that if we only have the will we can offer to Kenya in the future a rising standard of life, a standard far higher than she could ever have achieved if we had not gone to Kenya.

Mr. Hale: I have been listening to the hon. Member, as I always do, with great interest, and so far I agree with nearly every word he has said, but I ask him how Kenya can achieve this rising standard of life in the light of agreements which are being signed in Kenya this moment for the employment of resident labourers at a wage of 3s. a week, in a country with a high cost of living?

Mr. F. Harris: Who by?

Mr. Hale: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should ask that. I have the agreement in my pocket, and the landlord is Mr. Michael Blundell, the Leader of the Europeans on the Legislative Council. It is an agreement for 3s. a week seven days a week, and keep. Women and children must work, too, and sons of 16 must be prepared to work or get the sack. I have the agreement here if the hon. Gentleman wants to see it.

Mr. Wood: I think it would be better if, when I have finished my speech, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) were to try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and then to explain the agreement.
We can do much economically if we have the will to promote that rising standard of living for the years ahead. But we can also do much more. As I see it, we are offering, and will continue to offer, freedom from bondage and spiritual fear; a bondage to which many are, unfortunately, at present subjected; and freedom from a bondage which would never have been known in Kenya if Europeans had not gone there.
Returning to the part of the Motion which I left out just now, regretting the delay in appointing the Royal Commission, this is the only potential point of substance between the Opposition and the Government. I should like to underline what was pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and to draw attention to the very strong defence against this attack which was put up by my right hon. Friend. At 10 o'clock, as at present arranged, we are told that the House will be divided. As I see it, an Opposition vote on this Motion, when the two sides of the House are so very largely agreed, would be interpreted as a vote of censure against the policy being pursued by the Government—the policy which, to a very large extent, would be pursued by the party opposite if they were in power.
A Division tonight would be an attempt by the Opposition to try to placate the intemperate opinion in the party opposite; an opinion which, in the last few months, has continually slighted whatever my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has said. Such an assault by the Opposition might give a passing temporary satisfaction to the Left wing of the Socialist Party, but I do put it to the House that peace and prosperity in Kenya are far more important than any possible party manoeuvre which either side might wish to carry out in the House.
I beg hon. Members opposite to reconsider their decision and to see whether this Division cannot be avoided. Nothing would so strengthen the forces that are trying to establish law and order, and nothing we can say tonight is more likely to bring a peaceful situation in Kenya,

than sending out from this House a message that we are all united behind the policy the Governor and the officials in Kenya are pursuing.
This House, in the very short time I have been a Member of it, has, on several occasions, risen to really great heights, and at a time when we are too often bitterly divided on party lines about things that are much less important than we like to think them here is a chance for us to achieve that deep underlying unity which binds both sides of the House together, and to send out a message which will do a great deal to bring peace and happiness to people living thousands of miles away.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The Colonial Secretary made a very different speech today from the one he made when he was in Kenya, and has announced a very different programme. I do not know whether the visit of the Governor in last few days has persuaded him to alter his mind and to give attention to the economic problems of the Colony. Certainly it is rather surprising that he has only just decided to adopt precisely tile policy that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and I were urging upon him, upon the Governor and upon Members of the Legislative Council a month or so ago.
It is well to remember that the tragedy of this delay is that, when we left Kenya on 12th November the correspondents of all the London newspapers were leaving too; they said the trouble was over. There had been only one crime in the preceding fortnight, and most of those correspondents, experienced men like that distinguished correspondent of the "Observer," Mr. Colin Legum, who has written so ably and brilliantly and with such deep knowledge of this problem, were coming home; the crisis had ended; it was all over.
And then the right hon. Gentleman denied all hope of early economic reform. The time has come when we ought to speak quite frankly about this matter. I always listen to the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) with very sincere respect, as I think most hon. Members do, as one of those who the House knows speaks with deep sincerity and genuine moral courage, and I am really sorry to


find myself in complete opposition to some of his views today. I do not say this in a critical sense, but he did rather adopt some of the McCarthyism that we have had from the Colonial Secretary, and I am sorry about that; this gentle sneer, "Of course you are much more concerned with the murderers than the murdered "; this gentle sneer that there are some people who think the whites are always wrong. It is a fairly commonplace sneer to which we are accustomed now, and we do not mind it.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough and I were viciously, savagely attacked. My hon. Friend was the subject of a most brutal attack in the Legislature by the Leader of the Unofficial Members. We suffered the indignity of having people trooping round Nairobi seeking support for a petition that we should be deported from the Colony, at a time when they were welcoming the Lancashire Fusiliers, some of whom come from Oldham. They were happy to have the Lancashire Fusiliers. In that time we made no reply of any kind. My hon. Friend, I know, has since then had letters of apology from some of those who attacked him, letters expressing appreciation of his attitude. But it is pretty thick that today we should have these sneers that we have been trying to stir up trouble and have been contributing to the controversy, when he have leaned over backwards, I think too far, not to make controversial statements.
Reference has been made of the Report of the Devonshire Committee, which sat in 1923, primarily to consider Indian settlement in Kenya. This is what it said:
Primarily Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and that if and when those interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail.
It goes on to say that the interests of other races must be safeguarded. No one disputes that. When I said that on the 14th November, the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs popped up and said, "Oh, no. I must correct this. The word is 'inhabitants.'"
He was quoting from the United Nations Charter. But this was a solemn promise of the Government. Let us try

to think what has happened in the 29 years since then.. I do not want to detain the House, and so I will content myself by referring to one single problem. Let us see how it has been dealt with. I have had a number of questions on the Order Paper about the Devonshire Regulations since then. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has constantly dodged them. First, he referred me to a statement of my right hon. Friend, and then, in a written answer today, he referred me to some provisions made in 1920, which has very little to do with the implications of the proposition. It says, "Of course, we want to safeguard the interests of other races, too." It goes very little further than that.
Let the House consider the real facts about the situation so far as the employment of African labour is concerned. The document from which I have quoted is not an isolated document. I have had dozens of them. Most of them, at the moment, are in the possession of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). I want to say, quite bluntly and seriously, that I wonder sometimes how many people are being misled by information which is vague and misleading. When I and my hon. Friend were in Kenya we asked the Chief Secretary in Kenya for a good deal of information, which he was good enough to supply. I should like to express my sincere gratitude to the Governor of Kenya and to the eminent civil servants we saw there for the readiness with which they gave information.
Under one heading—the question of agricultural wages—this is the statement:
In agricultural areas no resident labour can be employed below a reasonable wage and the cultivation of land, average two acres, forms part of the contract. In addition to cash wages, fuel, housing and food is provided. Inspections are carried out to ensure that conditions of employment generally in agriculture are reasonable.
I have in my hand a contract which is in printed form, with merely typewritten insertions in the blanks. It is made under the resident labourers' order. It is witnessed or attested to by a magistrate or an attesting officer for the protection of the native worker, and it is dated 21st July, 1952. It is a contract for three years, which cannot be terminated by the worker. He signs on for three years. It provides that he shall have a piece of


land of not more than 2½ acres in extent. It does not provide any home, but it does provide that the occupier shall supply him with building materials with which he can build his own house.
It does not provide him with any food; it specifically says, "No posho." It restricts the crops he can grow on his little bit of land for his own subsistence to maize, potatoes and other vegetables. It refuses to allow him to own any cattle of any kind—any donkeys or goats—and says that he can own up to 15 sheep, if he can afford to have them. It provides that if he has a lad who has attained the age of 16, that lad must work for the employer or be ordered to leave the premises and go elsewhere. The contract can be extended up to five years. The name of the employer is Mr. Michael Blundell, the leader of the European members of the Legislative Council.

Mr. F. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman know when that was drafted? That was drafted under the Socialist Government when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was Secretary of State for the Colonies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it was, it was drafted under the Socialist Government.

Mr. Hale: That is a most shocking intervention. My right hon. Friend is quite capable of defending himself. He has a record in colonial progress second to none in the history of the Colony. As the hon. Gentleman has interrupted—and I have apologised to him for an attack which I made on him previously—and as be is interested in Kenya, perhaps he will tell us what wages he pays?
Most of us here have a sense of genuine personal loss at the death of the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Conservative Government. Most of us had for him an enduring and sincere respect for his abilities, for his essential gentility and for his brilliant humour. He would never have made the speeches which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has made in the last few weeks. He could not have made them.
The Secretary of State must remember that in this country of ours where we have a Conservative Press, bitterly anti-Labour, there is scarcely a newspaper in the country which supports

the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman at all. He has been denounced for his policy and for his smug, self-satisfaction with a static situation, and when he has talked about ruthless punishment, he has been denounced by almost everyone who understands the position in Kenya.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) aware that this Ordinance was dated 1937 and not during the period of the Labour Government?

Mr. F. Harris: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I cannot have this cross-section debate.

Mr. Hale: In view of what has been said from the Chair, I will not proceed further on that point, and I know that other people want to speak. I have not the slightest doubt that every party has made bitter mistakes in colonial affairs; everyone has made shocking mistakes—all of us. It may be that one has a good deal better a record than another, but it can never be a defence of doing something wrong to say that someone else did something wrong before.

Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: He is not disputing my Ruling. My Ruling has gone across the Floor of the House, and it is not going to be disputed.

Mr. Hale: I have not yet mentioned the wages clause of this agreement. The wages clause provides that the worker shall be paid for every 30-day ticket. I do not know whether that means 30 days of work or 30 consecutive days with, say, 26 days of work. But for every 30-day ticket he is to get 12s.—12s. in a Colony where the cost of African living has gone up to 300 per cent. and increased by 50 per cent. within the last three years. This is 12s. a month. It provides further, that if he has a lad of 16 or over, who works on the farm, he too can earn up to 12s, without any land or food or extra accommodation.
That is not the worst of them. I have one, made in 1949 with an additional


provision, and it involves the same landlord. It says:
All women and children to work when required by the owner.
That is typed in. The Minister of State said that my speech was unhelpful when I was trying to put the facts without putting them in any spirit of antagonism. I was waiting in the hope that an announcement would be made of the economic reforms which we have suggested. We had had a meeting which was private and to which I have never referred, but to which reference has been made by other people and at which members of all parties in the Legislature were present. We were promised and we expected that an announcement would be made.
I think the time for being moderate in this matter has gone. It is time that people spoke up for what is right and what they sincerely believe. That work agreement imposes a condition of things as bad as anything in the wicked days of slavery when Wilberforce was campaigning against it. It is time that some of those on the benches opposite who are interested in farms in Kenya and who have shares in these companies and in the land told us what they are doing about it.
I said with deep sincerity and deep conviction before, and I spoke without preparation and came to the House unexpectedly and found an unexpected opportunity, that there is a real fear that the time is coming when every African will begin to hate every European. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] There is nobody who knows that it is not true. None of us who go out there Can fail to be impressed by the gravity of the situation. We talked to Christian missionaries there, and I have been talking to them in London this morning. Let hon. Members talk to them and they will find a deep and abiding fear that Africa is marching with the majesty and inevitability of a Greek tragedy to what is for us a disastrous end.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies today made an adroit speech. In Parliamentary terms it was quite a clever speech. Had it been about transport or some matter of small local controversy one might have congratulated him upon an able Parlia-

mentary performance, but it was a shocking speech in relation to the gravity of the situation. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that he is not here when I say it, that some of the remarks which he made and some of the answers to questions which he gave, whether deliberately or not, have certainly created a wrong impression among hon. Members and certainly have not conveyed the facts.
We have been told in the last few hours more than once that coffee growing and sisal growing are now permitted to the African. It may be that the regulation has been repealed, but the Minister of State knows, and I know, that in substance that is not true and that the Africans are not growing coffee and sisal, because there are no local facilities for marketing and no possibilities of sale. The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs may know what happened to ex-Chief Koinange. He farmed adjacent to the European Highlands and he planted coffee. Officers came and took up every tree and destroyed them. He fought that case up to the Court of Appeal and he won, on the ground that the order was unconstitutional. Then they said that this was a separate case and did not apply to anybody else and that any other African who grows coffee may still be treated in the same way and may have to face the cost of going to the Court of Appeal before he can establish his right.
During the war the senior chief was asked to help with cutting timber which was badly needed. I think that I am right in saying that a sum of £22,000 was spent on a cutting mill to help with the work. When the war ended the senior chief was told that he could use it no more. It is standing there derelict to this day. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister of State will say that there is no regulation to prevent an African cutting timber. That does not matter; the Africans have no facilities.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies referred to Mr. Mathu and the courageous speech he made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly referred to Mr. Odede. He is a brilliant African and a Christian and a nominated member of the Legislature. He has been prohibited from speaking to Africans ever since this trouble arose. The same applies to Mr. Awori


and Mr. Nurumbi, one of the ablest men we met in Kenya. The Minister of State does not seem to appreciate the growing concern among the Asian population about what has happened. We cannot afford to alienate the sympathies of the people of Asia by supporting this colour bar policy and a policy of reprisals which is shocking decent people of all races out there. We have got to call it off. There is no question but the situation is getting much worse.
I said that the right hon. Gentleman had said things to the House that conveyed the wrong impression. The original statement made in this House and elsewhere referred to the great number of murders of Europeans by Mau Mau, but when we got out there we were told that there had been one. When we asked for the official figures from the Government we were told there was one. The right hon. Gentleman has made reference to Sir Philip Mitchell's speech in July, but in June he was calling attention to the danger of secret societies and the possibility of the outbreaks of violence. Having done that in a speech from the Throne is it not surprising that he made the final speech he did?
We have had no explanation of the delay in dealing with this document. My right hon. Friend made the point that it was really a shocking thing to conceal the document and delay its handling. We had a debate on Kenya on 17th July. No reference was made to it and hon. Members opposite were allowed to put down an Amendment to our Motion in which they urged that the land situation should remain in Kenya as it always had remained, that the European highlands should be protected and that the areas should be allocated as they had always been, all in complete ignorance of the fact that the Governor two months before had written urging these reforms, urging the fullest enquiry and calling attention to these matters.
I say that the House was wilfully deceived on that occasion, and if it were not wilfully deceived it was gross negligence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in not giving the information to the House at that time. If he had done so it would have made a real difference. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) referred to Lord Boyd-Orr. I was

always interested in one thing that he said when he was talking about war and want. He remarked, "The first thing you give to a poor, depressed and poverty-stricken people is hope." I believe if these people had been given hope in the period of months that was allowed to elapse during which Sir Philip Mitchell's despatch was sent, and during the six months after Mr. Mathu had put a Motion down in the Kenya Legislature urging the appointment of a Royal Commission on land, these troubles would not have occurred.
The great fact is that for 29 years the people of Africa have been told that it is the policy of the British Government that the interests of the African native should be paramount; for 29 years they have seen that ignored and neglected; for 29 years they have waited with patience for some action to be taken; for 29 years these grievances have been known and Government after Government, Labour, Conservative and Liberal, have been warned of them. Go into any large library and look at the books on Kenya from Macgregor Ross to Norman Leys and Negley Farson every one of which is a warning about Kenya. They are all of the type of "Crisis Coming in Kenya," "Clouds Over Kenya," warning all of us—and I have as much responsibility as anybody else—that this problem ought to be tackled and action ought to be taken.
It is very late now. It is very difficult now. I say to the Minister of State there can never be any case for postponing doing right because somebody else is doing wrong. There can never be any case for postponing reforms which will apply to 75 per cent. of the country in which there is no trouble because there is trouble in 25 per cent. of it. I do not believe there is a Member on the Government Benches who would get up on a platform, I do not think there are many who would want to do so, and try to defend the condition of things which exists in Kenya. Some very difficult and dangerous things have happened there is the last week or two.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: If the hon. Member means that there is not an hon. Member here who says that everything is right or perfect in Kenya, of course he is right; but if he means that there is not an hon. Member on this side who would get up and say that he


believes that Englishmen in Kenya have a record to be proud of, I can tell him that every one of us would do so.

Mr. Hale: I do not know how long the hon. Member has been in the Chamber.

Mr. Rankin: Only since half-past eight.

Mr. Hale: I would refer the hon. Member to the conditions on some of the European farms, and say that there is nothing to be proud of there. The editor of the "New Statesman" related that he was told by a white coffee farmer in Kenya that he had made £60,000 out of his farm. A society in which a man can make £60,000 out of coffee while labourers upon adjoining farms—they may not be on the same farm, and I do not suggest that—are getting 3s. a week, is a damnable and evil society, and does not deserve to be defended.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: Is the hon. Member aware that East African coffee growers round Moshi have made £1½ million in the last year, the Africans themselves?

Mr. Rankin: It is a co-operative organisation.

Mr. Hale: It is incredible, but the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) has actually made my next point for me. I was going to say that conditions were not so bad in Tanganyika. It is also said that in Uganda there are not so many white settlers. There is a very small white population, who are not dominating the whole economic power of the Colony today. Therefore Uganda has been enabled, under its distinguished Governor, to make very real progress in the last two and a half years, since some of my hon. Friends went there.
The Minister of State and the Colonial Secretary have to make up their minds. This is an intolerable state of affairs. There is overwhelming evidence that the power exercised by the white settlers upon the Legislature and upon the Governor is the predominant power in Kenya, and there is overwhelming evidence that it has been exercised for the wrong reasons. Would the Minister of State tell us why one very distinguished member of the Legislative Council, whom

we met at that Conference when we propounded our proposals, has resigned in the last fortnight? What was the reason given for that resignation by a man whom we saw apparently keen on progress and on reform and keen to help to solve the situation? Would the Minister of State like to tell us, or are the facts too bad to relate?

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: The reason that Mr. Neep gave for his resignation was ill-health.

Mr. Hale: That was, of course, the reason that the former Minister of Transport gave for his resignation. It is a very convenient reason to give. His health must have deteriorated very rapidly, because we saw him apparently in the full bloom and flush of youth at that meeting.
Now that he has given the House an assurance that at last economic reforms are in contemplation. I implore the right hon. Gentleman to pursue them with the utmost vigour and sincerity. There is no difficulty in a subsidy on posho. It is given in every other country where this is the staple meal and the price has gone up nearly eight times since 1939. The total sales are only 1,200,000 bags a year, so there is not a stupendous expense involved. That would give 10,000 homeless in Nairobi their best encouragement.
There is no difficulty about the introduction of trade unions. That would be the biggest single step which could be taken. I can give an assurance that the T.U.C. would be willing to help in every way in organising useful trade unions in Kenya which would protect the standard of life of the people. The question of title to land is no doubt a more difficult problem, but there is no difficulty about the minimum wage in a country which is highly prosperous and is paying minimum wages which are a scandal throughout the world.
Those are three things that could be tackled now and which should be tackled now. If they are tackled, we on this side will forget the past. We on this side will forget the blunders, dilly-dallying, delays and loose statements to which we have been subjected in the last few months. We shall be willing to support Her Majesty's Government in any sincere efforts they make to improve the standard of life of the people of Kenya and to restore harmony and peace to this Colony.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: In the few minutes I have before the final speeches are to be made, I shall have to limit myself to one or two specific points.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) accused some of us on this side of the House of being amused. Speaking for myself and those around me, I can assure him that we were anything but amused. I mean that in all sincerity, as the hon. Member himself was obviously speaking with sincerity. For my part I should not like to have on my conscience the possible consequences of having made the kind of speech which he has just made. I cannot imagine a greater justification for what the Secretary of State said earlier about the danger that can follow from making strongly partisan speeches at such a critical moment.
Several times tonight the point has been made that because the record of the previous Government in improving conditions in Kenya was not very wonderful. it is not right for us to point that out, because two blacks do not make a white. That may or may not be so, but the record of the previous Government is extremely relevant when a Motion is put down censuring us for conditions which exist today when we have been in office for only a year. That gives us every right to point out those facts.
We have had several criticisms of wages from the hon. Member for Oldham, West. We have had criticism about the colour bar, about collective punishment and about land. In every instance the record of the previous Government is in no way different or more positive. Nor have we gone back in any way on the progress that was being made in any of these fields under the rule of the previous Government.
As to the colour bar, the claim on that side of the House that they alone dislike it is grossly untrue. We share that dislike to the full but we realise that it is impossible to impose a change by law. It must come from the understanding of all the people that it is an undesirable social practice. We cannot pass laws which will command the respect of a community by making an attack upon one section of it. That will not cure the colour bar, it will only make it worse.
As to the apparent delay over the Royal Commission, that was explained perfectly by the Secretary of State. Yet we have heard nothing about an older recommendation for the appointment of a Royal Commission on Health and Population in His Majesty's Dependencies in Africa in 1947 by the British Medical Association. It is rather interesting to see what happened to that recommendation for a Royal Commission, the wording of which is in many respects similar to that of the report by Sir Philip Mitchell, which has been quoted so much today.
These documents—the precise and the actual full recommendation—dated 1947 and 1948, respectively, were sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, then Mr. Creech Jones, on 16th February, 1949. Receipt was acknowledged by an official of the Colonial Office on 22nd February, 1949. On 18th November, 1949—that is, 10 months later—the British Medical Association sent a reminder to the Colonial Office asking whether they had any further communication on the subject.
On 5th December, 1949, an official of the Colonial Office replied as follows:
I am directed by Mr. Secretary Creech Jones to refer to your letter of 18th November, 1949, about the population problem in East Africa and to state that the memorandum on this subject prepared by the Kenya Branch of your Association"—
that is, the British Medical Association—
has been carefully studied. Mr. Creech Jones is unable, however, to add at present to the reply he gave to Mr. Ivor Thomas, M.P., in the House of Commons on 9th March, 1949. A copy of the relevant Question and Answer is attached.
In that answer, Mr. Creech Jones said that he saw no possible reason for the appointment of a Royal Commission on population and other problems in Kenya. That was in 1949. Therefore, when we talk about delays it should be remembered that that former Minister of the Crown said that he saw no reason whatever for the appointment of such a Commission; and yet today we are attacked because we have not immediately got a Commission formed and at work.
Everything that has been said here tonight proves conclusively the final remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies that, whether hon. Members opposite like it or not, we on this side, and, I believe, a majority in the country and, certainly,


many of our friends overseas, believe that this issue is being treated as a party matter. This is, moreover, a particularly bad form of party conflict, because we are getting into the state when hon. Members opposite are becoming known to racial extremists in our Colonial Dependencies as their supporters in putting forward extremist points of view.

Mr. Rankin: Boloney.

Mr. Bennett: I wonder what will happen if and when the unfortunate day should come when hon. Members opposite again take over Government, and how hard they will find it to get on with the moderate elements in the Colonies whom they have abused and insulted and are abusing and insulting at the moment.

Mr. Rankin: It is in a big enough mess now.

Mr. Bennett: The whole of this subject should be dealt with in the House in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), by forgetting party differences and in trying to send out a message of general support to the people over there who are trying to maintain order and to restore peace and prosperity and to save lives while we are talking about it over here. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not divide the House tonight, but will let the voice of Britain and not of divided parties go out from the House this evening.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I say at once, in answer to the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett), that we propose to divide the House on the Motion so ably moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: Disgraceful.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We shall do so to show that we are not satisfied with the way the Secretary of State has handled this grave matter in the 13 months that the Government have been in power. We still think that he has been guilty of inaction and delay when urgent action was required. We think that he has overstepped the acceptable limit of misjudgments and mistakes during the period of

crisis since September. Above all, we think that his whole approach to the Mau Mau problem and the present state of Kenya has been wrong.
Since we shall divide the House, perhaps it may be as well that I should restate very briefly some things on which the House is not divided. As every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken from these benches has declared, we are against Mau Mau. We abhor the terrible forms in which it has been seen in Kenya in recent months. We believe that in the situation developed last September emergency Regulations and emergency police action have been required.
We give our full support to the police in the very dangerous and very difficult work which they have been called on to perform. We are glad that, so far, civil measures have been taken and that there has been no recourse to martial law. We all sympathise very deeply with the anxiety of the European settlers on their farms. Throughout these months the strain on them and their wives and families must have been intense. None of us could read the account of their position, published in the "Sunday Times" the other day, without feeling that everything conceivable must be done to bring the terror to an end.
We all agree with the leader of the elected European members of the Legislative Council, Mr. Michael Blundell, in admiring the spirit of the Kikuyu who have stood out against the Mau Mau and support his demand that none of these brave Africans shall be in any way prejudiced or penalised by the general measures which may be required. On all this we are united. Our vote tonight will not divide the House on these issues in the eyes of Africans or of other nations of the world. We have moved this Motion because we are dissatisfied with what the Secretary of State has done and because, in this debate, we want to throw a searchlight on his state of mind, on what I hence call his whole approach to this problem of Kenya, and its effect on the policy which has been pursued.
Let me say at once that the Minister made a better speech tonight than he has made before. I think he has moved a great deal in the last six weeks. It shows the power of Parliament to educate a Minister in his job. In so far as it was better, it is a great success for our Parlia-


mentary pressure, for our stream of Questions, for our insistence on debates and for the Motion which we have put down today. But that somewhat better speech does not wipe out his failures up to now.
I begin with the Royal Commission. Almost everyone who has spoken about the subject until today, or who has written of it in the Press, has regretted or denounced the delay in setting it up. There has been a kind of chorus in the Press, in "The Times" the "Spectator," the "Economist" and many more. The Secretary of State declared today, as he has declared before, that there has been no avoidable delay.
I agree with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), in his very powerful speech just now, about the failure of the Secretary of State to publish this despatch. If this despatch had been published, if it had been known to the House, as it should have been known, on 17th July, there could not have been this long delay in setting up the Royal Commission. We declare with all the emphasis at our command that this Commission should have been set up long ago.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: There is an important paragraph in Sir Philip Mitchell's despatch to which I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman on page 6, paragraph 19:
Here I may repeat what I wrote in my despatch No. 44 of the 17th April, 1946. …
and he sets out the position there. Why then, is it not reasonable to ask, did not the previous Government set up a Royal Commission when the facts were well known in 1946?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My right hon. Friend assures me that Sir Philip Mitchell never proposed a Royal Commission in those days and, of course, all through that time studies of these problems were going forward under the guidance and inspiration of my right hon. Friends.
Let the House consider these facts. The Secretary of State had the whole substance of this proposal for a Royal Commission before him on 16th November last year. He admitted this afternoon, in answer to a question from me, that no substantial change was proposed by the Governors at all. He had their full agreement on 17th April. He had had five months already to consider the substance of the proposal they put forward.
On 17th April the road was absolutely open to him to collect his Commission. It has taken him eight months, and I do not believe that we should have had it now but for our recent pressure and the Motion which we have put down today. Surely, in half that time, in four months, he could have got the Commission together. The Governors said in their despatch that it was urgent, and that they wanted to see the Commission at work before the end of 1952. It is now the end of 1952, but the Commission is not at work, and it will not be at work for some time to come.
Suppose the Secretary of State had announced his Commission in August of this year, as we believe he could have done. That might have been a very powerful factor in checking Mau Mau, or at least in much reducing the active or passive support which it received. Of course, the Secretary of State scouts that suggestion. He said the other day, and again today that it is an entire misapprehension to ascribe any of the present troubles to the delay over this report. But that evades the point. If a strong Commission, with an African member, able to command the confidence of all the races in Kenya, had been appointed, would it or would it not have had a steadying effect? The Secretary of State says not: but he is almost alone in that opinion.
"The Times" said this morning:
A speedy beginning of the work may be an important factor in restoring the confidence of the people in the good intentions of the British Government,
and it adds:
—there is good reason for the protest today's Motion contains against the delay in announcing the names of the Commissioners.
The "Spectator" said that the spectacle of the Commission at work would create hope and confidence as the delay in starting it is creating disillusionment and distrust. I wonder if the Secretary of State remembers—but, of course, he does—the moving broadcast made by Mr. Mathu on 1st December.
In his appeal to his African people, to the Kikuyu, he spoke of the Royal Commission, and he said it was coming to investigate the needs and troubles of the black people, including the land problem, and he added:
Think a moment in your hearts, and you will agree that the Commission set up by our


Gracious Queen Elizabeth will not agree to listen to our needs and troubles while Mau Mau goes on doing these awful things.
Has the House forgotten the Commission of Inquiry, with two African members appointed to investigate the tragic happenings at Enugu in Nigeria three years ago? That Commission was a major factor in bringing peace and order and in stopping further shooting. Even now, everybody, like "The Times," looks to the Royal Commission as a major factor in our hopes for law and order. How much more if it had been appointed in August?
But, of course, the attitude of the Secretary of State to the Commission really springs from his view of Mau Mau as a whole. He thinks the Commission has to deal with long-term problems of land, industry and the economic regeneration of Kenya. Mau Mau, he said on 7th November, has nothing to do with that. He said, in an answer on which he put a gloss today, but which will stand in HANSARD as he said it:
… Mau Mau is not the child of economic pressure. The only point at which Mau Mau infringes on economics is that its promoters make money out of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 459.]
We agree that Mau Mau is a reversion to barbarism. It is the unholy alliance of dark and ancient superstition with the apparatus of the modern gangster. We agree that it feeds on a perverted nationalism.
But does that mean, as the Secretary of State has said to us, that it does not feed upon economic discontent?
What did Mr. Mathu say in that broadcast? What was his central point?
We cannot attain more land by violent methods.
What did Sir Philip Mitchell say about the Kikuyu Territory? He put them first on page 2 of his despatch. He said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Paling) said in his powerful speech:
The pressure of the population on the land in the Kikuyu territory is more than it can properly bear"—
these are Sir Philip's words—
even if the standard of farming were to be greatly improved.
The Kikuyu Territory is near Nairobi, near the settlers land. They see the way

in which the European settlers live. They compare it with their own desperate poverty, which is increasing every year. As my hon. Friend said, there are a million of the Kikuyu population in their Reserve with, on the average, 500 to the square mile. Their total land is 2,000 square miles. Next door there are 3,000 European farmers, with a quarter of a million Africans working on their land. They have 12,000 square miles in their Reserve.
The Secretary of State quoted Dr. Leakey's book "Mau Mau." As I read Dr. Leakey, the only Englishman born and brought up among the Kikuyu, and an elder of their tribe, he says that the whole purpose of Mau Mau in the eyes of the people is to recover their lost land. Many thousands of the Kikuyu drift into Nairobi only 20 miles away. Last July the Member for Law and Order said in the Legislative Council that every night in Nairobi there are 10,000 destitute Africans in the city without a bed, who cannot get homes or jobs, and who are a fertile seed bed for crimes of every kind.
Has the Secretary of State seen the Mau Mau hymn read out in court at Kapangunia the other day?
What shall I do,
What shall I do to be free from my sorrows?
That was its refrain.
Why, after 60 years of British civilisation, are so many simple Africans turning to bloodshed to drive out the British? The Secretary of State argued that Mau Mau could not be economic, because Mau Mau first attacks the African leaders who are striving to raise the standard of their living. He asked why does Mau Mau do that? I would ask him why, in every satellite country, the Communists first destroy the Social Democratic Party? It is because they must get rid of those who can bring economic progress, who can relieve poverty and hardship by peaceful, democratic means. I say to the Secretary of State that only the blind can fail to see that Mau Mau gets its strength, its wide support, from the grinding poverty, the economic and tribal chaos in which the Kikuyu live.
We think that until today the Secretary of State has shown the same myopia about wages. I admit at once it is a very difficult question. We thought the first


thing to do was to build up the trade unions. As my right hon. Friend said, during our tenure of power the trade unions in the Colonies increased immensely. But let us consider the wage situation which the Secretary of State said had no influence on the Mau Mau movement. He told us the other day that the average rate for the Kenya African is 25s. a month, with a food allowance worth 20s. Let us be generous and call it 12s. a week. My hon. Friends have shown that there are wages in Kenya lower that that.
In answer to our Questions over recent weeks the Secretary of State has admitted that higher wages are sometimes not paid when they should be. He said it was a difficult problem and that he was going to talk to Sir Evelyn Baring about it; but has he said once throughout these recent weeks that he is now going to make a great and concerted attack upon what Sir Philip Mitchell calls the low wage economy of the country? Not once has he said that.
Sir Philip Mitchell says that that is what we must now do. Mr. Michael Blundell said so in his statement in the Press yesterday. The Secretary of State says that low wages have had nothing to do with the present crisis. An African member of the Legislative Council has said that a rise of 30 per cent. might prevent a great deal of the effectiveness of Mau Mau. The Secretary of State, asked to comment on that, said that a rise of 30 per cent. would spell economic disaster for Kenya. I do not believe it. Would a rise from 6s. to 8s. a week—or from 12s. to 16s. if one includes food—really mean ruin, when one thinks of the margins made by many of the larger industries and farms?
What I do say to the Secretary of State is that wages of 12s. a week, with the cost of living rising very fast, spell economic, social and political disaster for the countries where they obtain. Even primitive peoples will no longer tolerate the kind of poverty they used to know. In the middle of his despatch Sir Philip Mitchell gives a devastating analysis of the low wage economy in Kenya. He says that it is based on a grossly
… wasteful use of unskilled, often undernourished and generally unhealthy labourers … from whom nothing but an excessively low standard of industry was expected.

He called the wages "uneconomic." because they cannot keep a man and his family on a reasonable standard of living. He says that they are subsidised in various ways—by the missions, by the relief services, by vile housing and by the deterioration in the health of the worker and his family.
Why do not the Africans work better? First, because they are not trained. But largely, as Sir Philip says, because of malnutrition and disease. That is why Sir Godfrey Huggins lays down a minimum diet for all labour contracts in Southern Rhodesia. On 12s. a week a man cannot buy enough to eat for himself and his family. Has the Secretary of State ever seen the horrible disease of hook-worm? It destroys the power to work more than anything else. It used to be a major curse in the Southern States of the United States of America. In 1950 a village in Kenya, which was healthier than most villages, was examined at the end of the dry season, when hook-worm should be at its lowest, and every single individual was found to be infected.
How does one get rid of hook-worm? First, one needs a cure, which, happily, is now quite easy, and then one needs floors to one's houses and shoes for one's feet, neither of which the African worker can possibly afford to buy at present. A low wage economy is in itself a disaster. As Sir Philip Mitchell says, we used to have it in Britain, and our nation still shows the marks of that disastrous epoch.
I know that it is a long and difficult problem. I am not saying that it could have been cured in the last 13 months, and I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will not try to ride off on that. What I am saying is that we bitterly regret the Secretary of State's approach to this vital problem throughout the last 13 months. We think he ought to have given a different reception to Sir Philip Mitchell's original despatch; that he should have given it to us sooner; that he should have taken swifter action; that he should have said very quickly that he was determined to carry out the great purposes which Sir Philip set forth. Those are the main reasons why we have put down this Motion for debate today.


I am glad that the Secretary of State said what he did about collective punishment. He went far further than he had ever gone before and he came near to saying, as we say in our Motion, that, even when he thinks it necessary, he views it with great concern; indeed, he said he abhorred it. He went near to saying that its long continuance may embitter race relations. He left me very glad that we had put this passage into the Motion which we have moved and that we have so evoked his declaration.
The right hon. Gentleman went through the later constructive parts of the Motion—co-operative farming, the cost of living to the African, the extension of free education, the creation of new industries, the provision of better houses, the democratisation of local government. He talked with scorn about our "platitudes." But on nearly every point he said that he is going to do at least a part of what we demand; and it has taken our Motion to make him say SO. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, he has never said it before in the last few weeks when we have debated this issue.
But although he said it, in his Amendment he proposes to strike it out. We think it far better that these proposals for constructive remedies for the present situation, for quick action to be taken by the Kenya Government, should stand among the firm decisions of our House of Commons. Of course, we realise that all these things cost money, and I know that it is not very easy in the present day conditions to get a Kenya loan.
I know that the Colonial Development Fund, to which my right hon. Friend added £20 million, has now all been earmarked. But with this emergency in Kenya, we say without hesitation that our Government here ought to find the money needed to attack the economic evils which exist. If we have the right to debate Kenya as we have, and to settle policy, we have duties, too. We think that the Government ought to guarantee a loan and, if need be, to make a generous grant.
But material progress alone will not solve the problems of Kenya today. I want to say two more things to the Government before I conclude.
While Mau Mau terrorism continues, as it does now, they cannot hold the

inter-racial conference on constitutional reform to which my right hon. Friend secured agreement 18 months ago. But I hope they will hold it very swiftly when the terror ends. There will be many people who want to put it off, but I hope the Government will resist them. It is just because the situation has been so dangerous in Kenya that constitutional reform is still more urgent. The Government must try to hold this inter-racial conference very soon.
Secondly, I hope that both in that conference and in all other ways the Government will use their influence and will speak most plainly about a subject on which hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken—the colour bar. The Secretary of State said that Mau Mau is a racialist movement; and so it is. But whose was the colour bar? I am glad that he has said quite plainly today that he and the Government are against the colour bar. I hope he will go on saying that, and I hope he will do more. I hope he will do everything in his power—and it ought to be a lot—to persuade the Europeans in Kenya that the colour bar must go. I know how difficult it is to break down a colour bar. Nobody knows just how difficult unless he has lived in mixed communities and seen it.
Kenya, it is said, has made some progress: the Governor invites all races to his parties; there is an inter-racial club in Nairobi; there is even an hotel open to all races somewhere up country. It is a very faint beginning. The truth is much nearer to what some of my hon. Friends have described today. On the colour bar Her Majesty's Government and the House of Commons can only stand on the principle of the full equality of all races. That was written into the Charter of the United Nations by the Foreign Secretary and by the Leader of the Opposition seven years ago. In the Commonwealth, as my hon. Friends have said, there are nearly 500 million people of the coloured races who all recognise our Queen Elizabeth as their head.
It may not always be easy for the Government to talk about this thing. I urge upon them strongly that it is right. Milton wrote these words:
Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do ingloriously to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple:


whoever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
If in all their dealings with this problem the Government stick to the principle of the equality of races, as our Labour Party have always done, they will not go wrong.
There is a grave crisis in Kenya today. It needs strong police action, with British justice. It needs strong economic action, with ample funds. It needs social and constitutional reform. It needs the break down of the barriers that have kept the races apart. It is a dangerous crisis, but every crisis is an opportunity as well. There are signs today that the strain of recent weeks has brought the Europeans and the law-abiding Africans closer together than they have ever been before. In that fact lies our brightest hope. In that hope we shall ask the House to uphold the Motion we have moved today.

9.23 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The terms in which this Motion has been drawn, together with the attack made upon the administration of the Colonial Secretary, make it a Motion which, if pressed to a Division, is tantamount to a vote of censure. It involves, therefore, the whole of the Government. Consequently, it has been thought proper that the final reply should be made by a member of the Cabinet.
This in no way reflects upon the skill of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. He has already proved himself at home and in the Colonial Empire a most able and efficient Minister. But, as I say, since this debate transcends ordinary Departmental discussions, this course seems proper, both out of respect to the House and in regard to the importance of the occasion. Perhaps the reason why it has fallen to me to reply is that I had the good fortune to have a year's service at the Colonial Office.
No one can have listened to this debate, or, indeed, to recent debates on recent events in Kenya, without some conflict of emotions. On one hand, there is a sense of crisis and disappointment that such tragic, such horrible events should take place in a territory which has made such wonderful progress in so short a time. Then, on the other, there is not an unnatural surprise that so great a deterioration should develop so rapidly.
But perhaps the most dominant feeling throughout has been the sympathy which we feel for those of all races who are suffering so greatly. Our hearts go out—and I do not think we ought to be ashamed of such feelings—first to our own people. We know the many splendid men and women, young and old, of all ranks and occupations, whose lives may be in constant danger, but whose spirits are unbroken and unbreakable. We have read very many moving stories of their trials only the other day in the Press and elsewhere, and it is a source of pride to us that they have shown themselves worthy of the highest British traditions.
Many tributes have been paid to their courage and steadfastness, and I was grateful that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), with whom we do not always agree, has been generous enough to recognise the tolerance as well as the courage of their leaders.
By contrast, the bitter diatribes of the right hon Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wilfred Paling) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) seem as outmoded as they are ungenerous; they are a survival from a type of mind that takes pleasure in denigrating the British planter and settler, whether in Malaya, Kenya, or elsewhere. These self-inflicted wounds have done a great deal of damage to British power and prestige for many years, and I hope that we shall soon reach the end of this kind of degenerate eccentricity.
A somewhat different attack upon the European population—perhaps it was not so strong as an attack; perhaps criticism—was made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). It was based, I thought, on the rather slender evidence of casual conversations during his recent visit. Perhaps they were pulling his leg. He told us how the settlers sometimes made rather critical observations about the Africans. But what seemed to shock him still more was that they appeared to have rather a low opinion of Parliamentary institutions in general and of the House of Commons in particular. Well, one does not have to go to Kenya to hear that. One can hear it almost any night in the "local."
As my right hon. Friend pointed out so convincingly, we must be careful to


give our own people not merely sympathy but support. If we have confidence in them, it is just as necessary that they should have confidence in us, for in my experience it is more important that the troops in the front line should trust the generals at headquarters than that the generals should trust the troops.
Our sympathy is equally sincere for the Indians and the Arabs, who have been equal victims in this terrorism. Under British rule, Arab and Asiatic peoples have prospered in Kenya. They have both contributed to and shared in this prosperity. There is a very long tradition of friendship between British and Arab peoples all over the world; and when we speak of the Indians, Hindu and Moslem alike, we must remember that they are linked with us, and take pride in it, by the double tie of a long connection and their membership of the Commonwealth.
But because they are, in a sense, the most tragic sufferers from these events, we feel especial sympathy for the African peoples, both of the Kikuyu and of other tribes. They have undergone the monstrous attack of these deluded fanatics to an extent far greater than the European population, for the victims have been, as so often happens in such outbreaks, their own moderate and respected leaders. Kenya and the Kikuyu people have already lost many such men. We honour their example of loyalty and of courage, and we salute their memory.
Four races are threatened by this outbreak of barbarism—four races for whom, I gladly admit, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) worked so hard during his period of office to bring together. Let us hope—at any rate, let us conduct ourselves here—that when the crisis is over the result may not be embitterment or an increase in intolerance, but rather an increased sense of comradeship, as of men and women who have passed together through the annealing test of fire.
While we recognise the gravity of the position, do not let us exaggerate it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly told us, in a previous debate, that we had a solemn duty to prevent this from becoming a racial conflict. That is true. Although I am bound to say that the bitterness of the attacks upon Africans makes one wonder whether this reversion

—for that is what it is—to atavism, is not really something different—a protest, conscious or unconscious, against the recent admission of light into darkest Africa—and, therefore, something in the nature of a reaction to barbarism rather than a groping forward to the future.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the danger—and I have his words—of "destroying "the last chance we have in Africa. That is mere rhetoric—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Except on its Northern coast, under the Roman occupation, or in the Valley of the Nile under the ancient Egyptian civilisation, or where in some places Moslem influence has penetrated, the dark Continent of Africa has, until recent years, had no chance at all. We all know the ancient tag, "Something new is always coming out of Africa," but that has really meant something monstrous, something mysterious, something not new but horrible and obscenely old. This is not our last chance in Africa, nor is it Africa's last chance. It is, after countless centuries, Africa's first chance. Let us not be ashamed of it. To whom does Africa owe it but to the British pioneer?

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I at once say that the rhetoric of the phrase, "The last chance in Africa" was not my invention. I did not think of it; I quoted it. It is the title of a book, which I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to read, by Negley Farson about Kenya.

Mr. Macmillan: I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, although I thought that he might have allowed me to finish a phrase. I say that we owe it to the British pioneer—[Interruption.]—I will finish my phrase—whether planter, trader, settler, administrator or missionary. The fact that a phrase is quoted from the title of a book—although it appeals to me in one of my activities—is not an excuse for its misuse.
After centuries after centuries of stagnation Africa, it is quite true, is in the throes of revolution; but it is we who have been the revolutionaries. Why, in the lifetime of men still alive there was not in Kenya a railway, of course, not even a road, not even a wheel, not, of course, a school, not even a alphabet, no plough, no shop. [An HON. MEMBER: "No colour bar."] I will come to the colour bar. There was no business undertaking of any kind, except the slave trade.


Naturally, the impact of modern civilisation, to which to accustom ourselves we have had centuries, has set up tremendous stresses.
Faced with these tumultuous changes, with much that has been gained something also has been lost. A primitive system of land cultivation may have served to keep people whose numbers were always being kept down by external attack and by slave raids and, of course, by disease. That form of primitive agriculture, of course, cannot meet the needs of a protected and therefore expanding population. It must be radically changed in order to expand productivity and to serve the new conditions.
In the same way a tribal system breaking down, as where an urban population comes into being, a system of superstitious but nonetheless potent sanctions and taboos, weakened but not altogether replaced by nobler conceptions, a monetary and wage system introduced quite recently in place of older methods of exchange, and, last of all, the inevitable tendency which, alas, cannot be avoided in any system, to adopt and spread some of the vices as well as the virtues of the newcomers; all these developments, singly and all of them together, are bound to lead to prolonged travail and suffering before something new is born.
At the same time, we must not exaggerate the area of the trouble. Kenya is a large territory and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies told us today, and we were very glad to hear it, that three-quarters of it is at peace. Even in the affected areas the trouble is to some extent localised. Nevertheless, where it has broken out, it is a serious menace and therefore it must be mastered. The general work of progress must not be delayed; but that progress cannot be fruitful except in an atmosphere of peace.
In the first half of the first sentence of the Motion before the House, the House
extends its sympathy to all races in Kenya in their present ordeal.—
The Government, of course, welcome this declaration; but since in a moment of crisis action is the best expression of sympathy we equally welcome the second half of the sentence. That is where we are asked to state that this House
… reaffirms its support of lawful action to eliminate Mau Mau and to suppress barbarous

and violent crimes against both Africans and Europeans and to re-establish peace and order.
All that we accept.
Then the Motion goes on to refer to many other matters—matters quite properly raised in debate and on which the House on all sides, and in its collective capacity, has a perfect right to be informed, to make suggestions and to express criticisms. All these matters, some of them in the long-term and some of them in the short-term important, ought to be raised and debated. Incidentally, I was glad to observe that two suggestions made in the former debates have not been included in this Motion, although I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly referred to one today. I refer to the proposal that public meetings ought to be freely allowed even in the conditions of the moment, and also the second idea, that a committee or commission of hon. Members of this House should now make a visit of inspection.
Of course, as my right hon. Friend explained, the appeals by moderate leaders and the right of the chosen leaders of the Kikuyu people are very valuable and we know that they are being used. But I think we must trust the local administration to find the means, and the most successful timing for these methods. I do not see how general political life by public meetings of any size without any control can be possible in the areas affected, at least at present.
As for Parliamentary visits, I should have thought that there again most of us would agree that timing is very important if they are to be helpful. Whether or not such journeys may in future be strictly necessary, I am quite certain that at the moment they are premature. The House has, of course, every right to inquire about, and if it so desires to criticise emergency measures such as collective punishment. It is a fact that these, by their very nature, may embrace innocent as well as guilty people. We should discuss the appointment of the Royal Commission, and make suggestions as to its working and the timing of its report.
Nor is it in any way irrelevant to deal with all the other questions that are raised. I see detailed in the Motion a very large number of questions, co-operative farming, reduction of the cost


of living, the extension of free education, new industries, housing and local government. All these are very important and interesting topics. Even we may recognise some of them, especially the last two, as being pertinent to our own insular form of private warfare.
But there is no coherence or theme running through this hotchpotch of suggestions. Moreover, phrased as it is, with its strange mixture of respectable sentiments, its censure of the Colonial Office and the Colonial Secretary and suggestion for long-term study, the Motion, whether by negligence or intention I cannot tell, would, if it were accepted by the House, be a vote of no confidence in the administration.
But what follows from that? It follows, in spite of all the protestations of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in this as in the previous debate, in spite of all the talks about not wishing to turn a national emergency into a party advantage, that the House finds itself in a position from which I still believe the great majority of the Members of the party opposite would wish it to escape. Why has this happened? Because whether by inadvertence or design, a Motion has been put upon the Order Paper which no Government could accept and continue to govern. If that is what hon. Members opposite want, then we know where we are. They want to exploit the national difficulty for party advantage. If that is so let us cut out all that cant and humbug.
I had intended to take a more generous view, and I must say that my more generous view survived the naïve speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, who said at the beginning of his speech that whatever happened in the debate his party were absolutely determined to vote for the Motion. So we are in this position. He was the prosecutor. He brought in the indictment, and he said that he would find a verdict whatever might be said on behalf of the accused.
'I'll be judge, I'll be jury,'
Said cunning old Fury.
I do not really believe that that was really the true purpose, at any rate of hon. Members who sit above the Gangway on the other side of the House. I have not so much hope of those who sit

below the Gangway. I think the real idea was a proper one, namely, to ventilate certain supposed grievances and to make valuable suggestions, such as there are in many parts of this Motion. I honestly believe that there are many hon. Members opposite who are far more interested in the future than in the past and in making useful contributions towards a better future. I think that really represents, apart from the position we have got ourselves into, the real wish of the House of Commons.
After all, we have had quite a sufficiency of matters on which we have, without great injury except to our health or temper, trod through the Lobby night after night in nearly equally balanced numbers. Here, I should have thought, was a matter on which general agreement, if it was at all possible, or if not, at least the highest common factor of agreement, might diligently be sought.
Now I must say quite frankly that in my opinion—and I believe it will be the verdict outside this House—to every count and every single item in the attack made upon him my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary had made not only a spirited, but an absolutely convincing reply. He has explained the procedure about the publication of Sir Philip Mitchell's despatch. He has told us the reason why such a despatch involved not merely the interests of Kenya but the interests of all the three East African territories. He informed the House about the obviously great problem of getting a suitable membership for the Commission for a task at once so prolonged and so arduous. I think we may congratulate him upon the names which were given to the House and were clearly received in all parts of the House with the greatest agreement.
With regard to the actual measures necessary to preserve and restore order my right hon. Friend explained the difficulties, and he vindicated the decision taken by the authorities on the spot. He used these words when he spoke about collective punishment, and I am glad he used them, "I abhor collective punishment." At the same time, he told us that those punishments had been effective mostly, if not entirely, against those whose innocence was suspect, and that if they were not accessories to crime they were at least


guilty of neglecting the first duty of every citizen and subject, if any order is to be kept, of participating in the pursuit of criminals and of aiding the forces of order in their punishment.
Nor are these measures, distasteful as they are, without respectable precedents.
[An HON. MEMBER: "Hitler."] Much more respectable than that—the right hon. Member for Llanelly. I was not sure whether the party opposite were quite certain of the things he had done in his time of office. They certainly did not seem to like them being read out. The right hon. Member for Llanelly tried to throw a lot of stones at my right hon. Friend, but he had forgotten the composition of his own house. It was glass, not very clear glass, not transparent but translucent, but certainly glass, and he and his Friends have lived in it for the last six years.
I was not quite so sure what was the position of the Liberal Party in this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) made, as always, a very moderate, attractive and moving speech. I was not quite sure what was going to happen, but when I opened the Sunday paper this week, I said to myself, "Well, the Liberals will be all right anyway." I read the heading:
Liberals support mass punishment. The Liberal Party Quarterly Council reject a resolution condemning collective punishment in Malaya.
Then I read what seemed to me about as good, about as fair, and about as sensible a statement on this matter as could be read. It was made by Sir Andrew McFadyean. He said that:
… the use of force in this way was so repugnant and they would all like to avoid it. But, every moral dilemma was a conflict of duty. It might be necessary, on occasion, that our efforts involved some little suffering to the innocent, but they were a form of protection of the victims of blackmail. In so far as they were penalties, they were falling on the kind of people who, through terror, had made themselves accessories after the fact and accomplices in deeds of murder.
I venture to recall those words because they come from a source which I am sure the right hon. and learned Member will regard as one at least worthy of attention.

Mr. C. Davies: I am wondering whether the words quoted were in the minds of the men who recalled what happened in the South African war. I recall the bitterness that has since ensued.

Mr. Macmillan: It was for that reason that I repeated the word "abhor" used by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am certain that, if they are ever to be repeated, every effort will be made to ensure that they do not inflict lasting hardship, for everyone is alive to the danger of turning vacillating neutrals into enemies of law and order. I do not think there is much on that point which has not been elucidated in the debate.
My right hon. Friend today has made a full, complete and absolutely convincing reply to that part of the Motion which is a Motion of censure. In his year of office and in many parts of the Colonial Empire he has earned, and is continuing to enjoy, the confidence of the House and of the nation. Of course, I know that what he said was rather a shock to hon. Members opposite, because it was not quite what they expected when they started this debate. They expected a rather easy victory for their champion. They thought it was something of a walkover, a kind of Roman holiday.
What happened? My right hon. Friend—I know it was not quite fair of him—actually answered back. He tried a fall with this doughty opponent and he threw him finally, heavily and firmly to the ground. If there was any butchering it was the right hon. Gentleman who was the victim. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) tried a little gallantly to come to his aid, but he is a light-weight in such a match as this. He was wise enough to say that he was not satisfied with the debate. I am not surprised at that.
All this is understood in our House of Commons, for in our House of Commons and in Parliamentary life we understand the battle of debate and we accept that. But the right hon. Gentleman, in opening the debate, used a phrase which struck me. He said, "The eyes of the world are on us." If that is really so, what should this House do at this moment? I venture to put this before my fellow Members, and I do so with absolute sincerity: all the inhabitants of Kenya, at least in the affected districts, whether official or unofficial, are carrying a heavy burden today. What is the message that ought to go out from here? Should it be a confused message or a clear message? Should it be the story of a squalid party wrangle, or the proud call


of a united people, speaking, perhaps, with different emphasis—that is natural but with a single voice? I cannot believe that there is any doubt what we ought to do.
The House has discussed, as it has a right and a duty to discuss, the immediate history of this affair and the present means of handling it. Members have asked for and have obtained explanations from the Government. All kinds of views—different views, diverging, perhaps, in method, but certainly converging in purpose—have been expressed on both sides of the House. The House of Commons will have performed its historic duty as watchdog of liberties and guardian of minorities—liberties even if they are abused, and minorities even if they are misled. It will have preserved its tradition of always being able to discuss the deep causes and ultimate remedies of social maladies as well as their immediate symptoms.
I beg the House, even at this late hour, to be content with this: there should be no Division tonight. That message would be far the best message that could go from us, one of unanimous sympathy for their trials, unanimous, resolute determination not to be mastered by the forces of disorder, but making it clear also that sympathy and support in the struggle to reimpose order are not in themselves enough, and that it is our duty and our

intention to join with them, with all the races in Kenya, to promote by all means in our power the political, social and economic progress of the whole territory. Thus, and thus only, can they—British, Asiatics and Africans together—resume the confident march towards their future.

This is, therefore, my plea to the House. We appeal constantly for unity in Kenya. We are asking four races, different in character, to unite. How can we make that appeal effective? Is it not possible that we should ourselves practice a little of this that we preach? If the Opposition withdraw the Motion, we will send out a united call. If not, I say let each man do his duty in his heart and conscience as he may understand it.

Mr. John Hynd: Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I have order, so that I may be heard?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 301.

Proposed words there added.

Resolved,
That this House extends its sympathy to all races in Kenya in their present ordeal and reaffirms its support of lawful action to eliminate Mau Mau and to suppress barbarous and violent crimes against both Africans and Europeans and to re-establish peace and order. Meanwhile, the Government of Kenya should continue by all possible means to promote the social, political and economic progress of the territory. This House reaffirms its belief that these efforts can succeed only through common action by all races.

CLOTHING DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (DISSOLUTION)

10.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move,
That the Draft Clothing Industry Development Council (Dissolution) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
This Motion is to approve an Order, under Section 8 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, for the dissolution of the Clothing Industry Development Council. The House will be aware from an answer to a Parliamentary Question, given on 1st December, that the representatives of both sides of the industry have agreed to set up a voluntary body with more limited functions in succession to the body whose dissolution is being sought.
The general purpose of all development councils is set out in the statute. It is:
to increase efficiency or productivity in the industry, to improve or develop the service that it renders or could render to the community, or to enable it to render such service more economically.
The Clothing Industry Development Council was set up under an Order made on 16th November, 1949, and came into operation on 1st January, 1950.
On the policy of development councils in general and some councils in particular, there has from time to time been a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House, but there has also been—and I would mention this tonight—a very general measure of agreement on certain matters. Both sides of the House have always recognised how much the success of a development council

would depend on the agreement and co-operation of both sides of an industry.
Perhaps I might quote just two sentences uttered on the same day in this House, one by the late Sir Stafford Cripps and the other by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). Sir Stafford Cripps, on 3rd June, 1947, said:
 … the success of the councils will, of course, depend very largely upon the degree of co-operation given by both sides of industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 92.]
And my right hon. Friend said:
I think it is the general opinion on both sides that these development councils will not be successful and will not attain the object we all have in view unless they are set up with the good will of all concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 53.]
Since the present Administration came into power, its attitude has been made clear on several occasions. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that valuable work in an industry can often be done by a central statutory organisation, provided that it is willingly accepted. Perhaps I might remind the House of my answer, given on 31st March this year, to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater), when I said:
My right hon. Friend is prepared to establish further development Councils only where there is substantial agreement on both sides of an industry that such a council is desirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March 1952; Vol. 498, c. 97.]
At the end of the present month the Council will have been in existence for three years and, under Section 8 (3) of the Act, the Board of Trade would have been bound in any event to consult the council and organisations representing both sides of the industry on whether the council should continue and, if so, whether the Order setting it up required amendment. Such consultations have been held.
As hon. Members know, this Council has never enjoyed the confidence and support of the main employers' organisations. They opposed it from the beginning and this necessarily hampered the Council's work. It prevented it from ever becoming an effective central body representative of the industry as a whole and enjoying its support and good will. As a result of his consultations and experience, my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that agreement between


the various sections of the industry would never be reached on the basis of the continuance of the present Council. There was, indeed, no alternative to dissolving the Council as a preliminary to any agreement on a voluntary basis, and I think the same conclusion was reached by many who had loyally supported and believed in the Council.
I should like to pay my tribute to those who worked so hard and well to achieve good results notwithstanding these difficulties. The difficulties I have described make all the more creditable what the Council and its servants have been able to do. The Board of Trade and, I think, this House, are grateful to all who have helped in this way. It might be invidious to single out particular members, but the Council as a whole would probably like me to mention the independent Chairman, Captain Fox-Williams, for his hard and disinterested work, and I might also mention the Vice-Chairman, Sir Richard yeabsley.
I should also like to say that the trade unions have always supported the Council, and perhaps the House will allow me to express my appreciation and that of my right hon. Friend of Dame Anne Loughlin, General Secretary of the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers, whose wisdom and advice have been so readily placed at our disposal throughout these negotiations. I am very glad indeed that both sides of industry—the employers on their side, under the leadership of Mr. Gerrish and the trade unions on their side—are co-operating in setting up the new voluntary body. Each side of industry has made its contribution to this settlement. I think the House would also wish me to mention the consultant service—under the director, Mr. Loweth—which constituted one of the main activities of the Council's work. The service advised free of charge individual firms on factory layout and organisation, and I believe that this work was appreciated by many.
The Order itself provides, as the statute lays down, for three things—for the winding up of the Council, for a levy should the assets be insufficient to meet liabilities, and for the application of the surplus. Perhaps I may say a word under each of those headings. For the winding up, the powers of the liquidator

will be similar to those of a liquidator where a company is wound up by the court. As for the provision for a levy should the assets be insufficient to meet liabilities, that is inserted as a proper matter of caution, but I can assure the House that there will be no need to make use of that power.
That brings me to the application of the surplus, which it is thought will be substantial. If the House will turn to Article 9 of the Order, they will find that it provides how the surplus money shall be dealt with. If they look at paragraph (4) of Article 9 and the Schedule to the Order, they will see that the Board of Trade may from time to time make payments out of the account into which the surplus is placed
for purposes connected with the industry for which the Council was established, being purposes specified in the Schedule hereto.
That is the Schedule to the Order.
Although naturally I cannot argue it tonight, I want also to inform the House that, as my right hon. Friend made clear in an answer to a Question which I gave the other day, there may in due course be a levy under Section 9 of the Act for the purposes which that Section lays down, but that must come before the House on an Affirmative Resolution when the matter can be discussed. Dealing with the general use of these surplus assets, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to make them available to the new voluntary body.
Perhaps the House would like me to say a word of explanation about the position of persons employed by the Council. I am advised that the position is that if this Order is approved by Parliament and comes into force on 1st January next year, that will act, by operation of law, as a notice of dismissal on that date. The legal rights of each person employed by the Council will then be a matter between him and the liquidator. Each will, no doubt, have his contract of employment express or implied, and on the implications of that contract the actual monetary sum to which he is entitled will depend.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to ask a question on this? Does this mean that the liquidator will have no freedom whatsoever except to apply the legal terms of the contract? Does it mean that the liquidator, for instance, would


not be able in any way to exercise common humanity and decency in providing compensation to these people?

Mr. Strauss: I was going to invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what, I think, are the relevant matters in the Order. I think the liquidator will have exactly the same right to do the just and proper thing—and that, I feel certain, both sides of the House desire—as any liquidator would if the company were being wound up in the ordinary way. It may be for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman if I draw his attention to Article 4 of the Order. Under Article 4 (1) of the Order the liquidator in the course of the winding up of the Council will have certain powers, with the sanction of the Board of Trade, and one of those is, of course, to deal with claims against the Council.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: rose—

Mr. Strauss: I really think I ought to continue. If hon. Members would like to develop any point I may, perhaps. address the House again, but I should like at the moment, if it is agreeable to the hon. and learned Gentleman, to continue. If the matter were agreed between the liquidator and the servant of the Council, that settlement would be made with the sanction of the Board of Trade. I think that will be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who, I know, is concerned with this position.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point. Is it not that the position is that the liquidator under this Order has, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just told us, exactly the powers of the liquidator of a company? The liquidator of a company has no power whatever to be generous. He has no power to behave as a good employer would behave in similar circumstances. He is bound to distribute the assets of the company and deal with its liabilities strictly according to law.

Mr. Strauss: I do not know quite what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by "generous." Certainly the liquidator has no power to treat the funds available as funds freely at his disposal for any purpose, but I think he can make a proper settlement with the persons concerned,

and I think they can be properly and justly treated.

Mr. Ronald Williams: Will the bon. and learned Gentleman forgive me? When he uses the term "properly and justly treated" would he be a little more specific? May I put the point to him in this way? Suppose that an employee is working under a contract of service, that it may be terminated by a month's notice, and that that is the legal basis of the contract as between the employee and the Council. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the liquidator has the power to give a month's notice and bring the contract to an end, or to pay a month's wages in lieu of notice and bring the contract to an end, or is he suggesting to the House that there are some other powers in this Order? I am submitting to him that there are no other powers at all, and that there is no room for the liquidator to do anything but carry out the strict legal terms of the contract which exists between the worker and the Council.

Mr. Strauss: I have endeavoured to explain that if this Order is passed by Parliament the notice of dismissal will be automatic on 1st January. That is what I am advised. But the rights of those who have claims against the Council will fall to be decided between the liquidator and those concerned. Paragraph 4 of the Order is the one which shows what those rights are.

Mr. Williams: Is not that inhuman?

Mr. Strauss: It would be better if hon. Gentlemen would make their speeches, and perhaps later I can reply to the questions they ask. It is not easy, as I know the right hon. Member for Huyton found, to bring the clothing industry together and to create an effective central body. It has a loosely knit structure divided into many sections. The new body will be an experiment, as indeed was the Council which it is now proposed to dissolve. Its functions will be more limited and its financial facilities will be more restricted.
But it will start with one immense advantage. It will start not in discord but in agreement between the two sides of the industry who will enjoy equal representation on it. I believe that this House will wish it well in the confident hope that it will tackle in a practical way the problems of a great industry.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Not even the persuasive tones of the hon. and learned Gentleman will succeed in convincing the House that this Measure arises out of anything except a surrender to certain vested interests. As to the terms of the Order, nothing he has said, even in reply to the many questions from my hon. Friends, has in any way satisfied this side of the House that fair provision is being made for those who have worked for the Council. But before I come to that point, on which I want to put a few questions to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should like to say something about the background to this Order.
We have to face the plain fact—the hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to disguise it—that ever since the original Development Council Order was passed by this House in 1949 the clothing trade associations have been completely hostile to the proposals. Their hostility did not arise out of any economic or trade motives. Their hostility arose purely from political and doctrinaire reasons.
There is a further point. We are tonight discussing only the Clothing Industry Development Council, but if the House passes this Order it is in effect making Sir Stafford Cripps' Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, a dead letter. That Act passed through this House virtually as an agreed Measure. There was considerable discussion on it and Amendments were made. It was always envisaged by the then Government that there might be an industry in which the employers were unitedly or mainly opposed to the establishment of a development council.
Sir Stafford Cripps at that time made it clear that, in those circumstances, provided a substantial majority of those engaged in the industry wanted a development council, the Government would feel free to appoint one. There was an Amendment moved in another place, and carried, which specifically dealt with that point, though later experience showed that the wording of that Amendment, which came from the other side, was not quite so clear when it had passed into law.
It is a fact that independent bodies which reported on the in

dustry recommended a development council. One of the three recommended a continuing body. That was recommended before the idea of a development council had been introduced. The other two working parties, which reported at a later stage, both recommended the establishment of a development council.
I am bound to say, from my experience of dealing with this and other industries, that I was more than a little surprised at the sudden hostility which blew up, a hostility which in some way became infectious, covering a number of industries which previously had supported, or accepted, the idea, and now turned against it. I do not think that was dissociated from a special meeting called by the Federation of British Industries for the purpose of concerting the attitude of various employers' organisations to development councils.
Turning back to clothing, I would say that if ever an industry needed a council, this is it. I am not saying that the industry is inefficient, because it would be right to pay tribute to a considerable number of firms which are doing a wonderful job in the export trade. One thinks of some firms which have broken into the dollar market—Canada, the United States of America—with some fine products and at reasonable prices. Some of us, when in America, have contrasted the price which has to be paid for a suit with the price for which a suit can be bought in this country.
That, again, is a tribute to a large section of the British clothing industry. But there is a large number of small units—and not all of them small—which are inefficient. There were some set up by get-rich-quick merchants after the war—small clothing establishments which are not on the level of efficiency which characterises the best units of the trade.
There were a number of problems to be settled by the Council. Among them was that of quality. Now that the Government have scrapped the Utility scheme it is all the more necessary to have a development council to prescribe standards. Indeed, the Government is making use of the Furniture Development Council in its new proposals, which are to be debated shortly. Another important issue is the high cost of distribution, which affects consumers and producers. A problem which has dogged the industry


for generations is seasonal employment. It was always envisaged that the Development Council would deal with that. Then there is the problem of efficiency.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that no tribute is too high to pay to those who have co-operated with and worked for the Development Council during these three difficult years. I join with him in his tribute to the chairman and vice-chairman, to the independent members, to the trade union members, and to those of the employers' side who joined the Council despite the official boycott of the trade association. I would like to join in his tribute to the staff, and particularly to the production efficiency service which was run by the director of the organisation.
Even so, we are bound to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what is going to happen. He said that there is going to be a continuing body. I gather that the Government had to work hard to persuade the employers to agree even to that voluntary body; but what kind of voluntary body are we to have? It will have no independent members, judging by what we have been told. It represents the two sides of the industry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us who is to protect the interest of the consumer. Who is going to protect the public interest? In the Wool Advisory Council, there are independent members for the purpose of protecting the consumer and the public interest in general. Then, I gather, there are to be 20 a side on this body, 20 employers and 20 trade union representatives. Where does the hon. and learned Gentleman think it will meet—at the Albert Hall?
I understand that the reason for this is due to one simple fact. This industry always argued that there could not be a Development Council because it was really a large number of separate industries and, therefore, there was no possibility of a single body. But although they said that they could not unite to form a development council, they did unite to oppose a Development Council. They formed a standing joint committee of some 16 trade associations, and the leaders of that campaign now find themselves embarrassed with a request from those who have supported them that they should have representatives on this new body. So, whether they like it or not, they have to have getting on for 20

members, and that means, of course, because we all agree with the principle of equal representation of the two sides, 20 trade union members as well.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has not told us what is to happen about those trade associations who have co-operated with the Development Council. There have been two or three of those. They loyally worked to make the Council a success. Now, I understand, they are to be left out. Representation is to be confined to the obstructionists, to the 16 who form the standing committee of protest, and those bodies that worked faithfully and well are now to be left out. What is the President of the Board of Trade going to do to secure representation on this body for those trade associations who have helped during these difficult years?
I should like to hear something from the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I put a Question down to him a few days ago about the future of the Efficiency Service. Is this Efficiency Service to continue? There have been rumours that a non-profit-making company was to be formed for this purpose and that in the last few days all these schemes have come to nought. If they have come to nought, it is hardly surprising in view of the ungenerous attitude of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of the President on the question of terms of service of those who have been working for the Development Council.
It seems to me extraordinary—and, I am sure, it does to hon. Members in all parts of the House—that when this Council comes to an end, as is proposed, in a few days' time, all the staff who have been working for it will be simply dismissed and thrown out of the service with no redress and no compensation. The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that some of these members of the staff—one thinks particularly of the director, but not only of him—came to this work from good jobs elsewhere. They took up this work because they believed it was a national service—and they were right—and they have worked unceasingly to promote the greater efficiency of this important industry.
Perhaps in their contracts there is very little protection of the kind referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Does that mean that this liquidator, to whom he referred—this mysterious per-


son—will be forced to throw these people out without a penny compensation? There are abundant precedents in other industries for compensation for loss of office.
Quite recently, this sort of thing has been introduced for the Civil Service. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman want the staff of this Development Council to be treated worse than the Civil Service? Then, of course, we are all familiar with what frequently happens in the Press in some of those newspapers owned by noble Lords and others. There is sometimes a decision to change the editor of a newspaper. When the editor is changed, whatever the terms of his contract, it is quite usual that he receives some compensation for loss of office, very often a year's salary. Will it be impossible for the liquidator to offer any terms of that kind?

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that knowing there was a real danger of the non-success of this Development Council, he as the Minister responsible took no steps to see that in the contracts of these individuals there was provision for compensation?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the contracts that were signed with the members of the staff were the responsibility of the Development Council and not of the Board of Trade at the time. We had no power to interfere in the matter of these contracts; but here is a very different case.
The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the liquidator, but we do not know who is to hold that appointment, although I understand that he has been appointed. Is this liquidator to have power to pay one penny more than is prescribed in these contracts? We are given to understand that he will have the same power as the liquidator of any private undertaking; but are we to understand that that means that even although the liquidator requires the sanction of the Board of Trade for the purpose of his public activities, the liquidator may not, and the Board of Trade cannot force him to, pay what would be just and reasonable in all the circumstances? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me, but in any case, I hope he will realise that we on this side—and I suspect that some of

his hon. Friends are with us—feel a profound concern about this. We, and they, want this Development Council to go out with some show of decency for those who have worked for it.
I suspect that the Parliamentary Secretary has not given his mind to this matter until this evening. He should be reminded of Ebenezer Scrooge, for I imagine that if it had been necessary to appoint a liquidator for his activities, the terms of reference would have been similar to those with which we are concerned this evening.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: He did reform in the end.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, he reformed in the end, but only at the festive season, and I hope that as we approach Christmas, the Parliamentary Secretary will think again and be warned perhaps by the "Ghost of Christmas yet to come."

Mr. Nicholls: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman represents the "Ghost of Christmas past"?

Mr. Wilson: We on this side of the House represent the "Ghost of Christmas yet to come", and what I was saying was that we have yet to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary more about this liquidator. Who is he? What kind of power is he to have?
Will the Parliamentary Secretary make it quite clear, above everything else, that the Minister will be responsible to this House for the actions of the liquidator? I know that it is laid down that the sanction of the Minister is required for certain actions of the liquidator, but not all; may we be told tonight if hon. Members will be allowed to question the Minister about the actions and the functions of the liquidator? Will the Minister make any sort of report to the House, especially on the subject of compensation to staff?
I am not going into the question of the substitute body which is to be established, but I would say that it appears to us to be inadequate and unsatisfactory. It will have insufficient powers, and certainly there is no suggestion at all that it is going to do anything to protect the consumer. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary takes some pride and satisfaction from the fact that the principal trade union in this industry accepts the new arrangement, but he knows very well that


it does so only under protest. The trade union would have been far happier if this Council had continued, and only when it found that the Government and the employers were ganging up to bring the Council to an end, did it agree to salvage something from the wreck; even if only this inadequate body. I agree with the union that it is useful to save something out of the wreck and, taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), I very much hope that this continuing body, weak and inadequate though it is, may form a continuing organisation which will one day blossom out again into a full development council.
Having said that we support the idea of getting something out of the wreck, we must really blame the Government for the fact that the wreck is taking place. Employers throughout the last year or two of the Labour Government were obviously engaged in playing out time hoping that there would be an Election and that they would have a Government more in accordance with their own views on this question. Well, they got their Government in October, 1951, and now, a year later, the Government have caved in to their pressure.
It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that we cannot have a development council with the employers against it. He knows perfectly well that if the Government had stood firmly these backwoodsmen and obstructionists would have given in and co-operated with the Development Council. After all, they could not hope to go on playing out time any longer as they only had to look forward to another Labour Government and we certainly would not cave in to their pressure.
This is really a very serious matter. The Government have capitulated to a number of trade association secretariats, principally secretariats who did not want to see their work cut into by any other body—a group of people who set out deliberately to organise a boycott and to frustrate something which had been passed by the clear will of this House and which, I think, was generally desired in very many sections of the industry. The Government have capitulated to that campaign and to that boycott.
The Minister knows, as the whole House know, the importance of getting

maximum productivity in this industry. He must know that this new body will not be the way to do it.
The Government have still to learn that they have responsibility, not only to the employers, but to both sides of industry, to the consumers and to the national interest as a whole and their capitulation to trade associations means that they are not carrying out that responsibility. Therefore I appeal to the House, who may be more aware of this than the hon. and learned Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends, to vote against this Measure and say that we are not going to tolerate this action of a weak Government in its capitulation to a trade campaign.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has stated his case in moderate terms, as befits one who is in a rather difficult spot himself. Before I deal with the case as I see it, I want to refer to one or two of the remarkable statements he made.
The first is that this industry has to deal with the very high cost of distribution. It is quite improper to say that. The distribution costs of clothing and textiles in the United Kingdom are among the lowest, if not the lowest, in the whole world. It is quite wrong for the right hon. Member, who has been President of the Board of Trade, to make statements which have no foundation in actual fact.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: My right hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Shepherd: I am quite well aware of what the right hon. Member said, and he is able to contradict it if he wishes.

Mr. Wilson: I said that one of the four problems they have to deal with is the problem of costs of distribution. If the hon. Member is perfectly satisfied with the costs of distribution in the clothing trade, perhaps he will tell that to the House.

Mr. Shepherd: I only remind the right hon. Member that he referred to the high costs of distribution and I was pointing out, in fairness to the industry which is having an attack made upon it, that the costs of distribution in this country are among the lowest of all the countries of the world.


When the right hon. Member talks of the interest of the consumer being safeguarded, he should know that it will not be safeguarded—and we must face this quite clearly—by having individuals on development councils. It will be safeguarded in its primary sense by having competition.
I know from my experience of this industry that it is not one which, in ordinary times and normal circumstances, is exactly free from competition. It will be safeguarded, in the second sense, by the action of the Government in trying to establish some specific standards of quality. These are the two bases on which the proper safeguards of the consumers' interests will take place.
I want to join in the general tributes paid to the members who have worked on this Council. It has been a disheartening task, because it is difficult to work for a body of this kind with a feeling that very few of the members are actual supporters. I think we can say that those who have tackled this task have done it with great distinction and have served the Council well. I am glad we have the opportunity tonight to discuss the question of the Development Council, even in some detail. I make no apology, because this experiment of a Development Council is not an unimportant one. The House is entitled to spend some time in its consideration.
When the Industrial Organisation and Development Bill was before the House, we stated specifically that we felt the compulsory powers which the Government was taking, and the compulsory basis for this kind of organisation were wrong. Who will now say, in the light of some years of experience, that the view expressed by His late Majesty's Opposition was wrong? Who will say that our view, that the compulsory element would not work, has not proved to be the proper one?
I want to refer only to this particular industry where there was a marked opposition. But, who will say in those industries where there is no opposition, but in a general sense a desire to do something, that the compulsory principle has been very satisfactory? All of us. reflecting over these years, will agree there is something wrong in the set-up of

development councils. There was certainly something wrong in the set-up of this Council.
What could the right hon. Gentleman, who set it up, have expected from it? He knows, as well as anybody, that a development council is a body with only two statutory powers. One, to exact a levy, and, the other, to demand statistics. It has not the authority to cause his actions to have any effect upon its members. What could have been more futile than to have set up a development council for the clothing industry, knowing full well that the Council would have no authority to inflict its views on the members? What could the right hon. Gentleman have expected more than a monument to mock his obstinacy? He is the man who is really responsible for the disaster today. He talks about the wreck. Who is to blame? And he talks about the ship which was destined to be wrecked before long.
The clothing industry is not an easy one in which to get any co-operation. largely, I think, because it has gone through very difficult times in the past. It is a very highly seasonal industry. It has had ruthless and vicious competition in the past when it was very difficult to live. The members of this trade are not accustomed to co-operation. If one has a nice stable background as an industrialist, it is easy to be co-operative. It is not so easy when one has to struggle for one's living. That is what most of the firms in this business did. They had to cater, for a great part of their lives, to suit the whims and fancies of women.
I assure the House, as one who has a little to do with business, it is very difficult to cater for the whims and fancies of women and not to develop into an anti-social being. I think these individuals have had a very trying time, with the fluctuations of fashion. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman trying to blame the Government for changing the Council from a compulsory one to a voluntary one, would it not have been better to look for the reasons for failure?
Why have we had the failure in this instance? Why it is that on the whole development councils are not yielding the results we thought at one time that they would yield? The first reason, I think, is that insufficient use has been made of


the voluntary principle. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the voluntary principle. When we have to overcome a lot of difficulties and reconcile differing points of view the voluntary principle has great merit. I think the time will come when even hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that the voluntary principle can accomplish what compulsion cannot in many spheres of activity.
The second reason is that there are already too many organisations. Industry has become littered with organisations. I tried some years ago to draw up a chart showing the relationship between all the organisations established by the Government and other bodies in industry. The chart became absolutely unreadable. There were no channels of communication; no lines of responsibility. What my hon. Friend might well do, in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary, is to try to get order out of this mass of organisation and overlapping bodies, because until we do something of that kind we shall not get the best results out of these councils.
We must realise that generally speaking employers today spend too much time on the politics of industry. Some of these big organisations have their executives chasing all over the country attending meetings of various organisations. In a more competitive society, into which we are now fortunately emerging, there will not be time for industrialists to spend so much of their capacity in the politics of industry.
Another point I wish to make is that on the whole these councils have too many functions. In the original Schedule they had 17. I am glad to see that the organisation is to reduce them, because clearly these councils try to eat into too many other fields. The Clothing Council would have been far more successful bad it had fewer objects.
I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has announced the formation of a voluntary council. I think it has a chance of success, whereas what the right hon. Gentleman did had no chance of success at all. In the first place, in a voluntary effort we would get in many individuals who previously stood out. With fewer functions we shall certainly have less conflict with other organisations, and we shall get more co-operation which was not obtainable under the old regime.

I wish to mention a point relevant to the question of why the councils have met with such opposition. It is because hon. Gentlemen opposite have played a big part in unnecessarily generating opposition to development councils. How many times have I heard hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about development councils as if they were the back door to nationalisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite say that those industries which they could not nationalise they would control by development councils.

Mr. R. Williams: Since the hon. Member has made a charge of that sort, will he mention one specific occasion and indicate the constituency of an hon. Member who made such a statement?

Mr. Shepherd: I can only refer the hon. Member to one specific example, though I am not restricted to one example, because this statement has been made time and again. If the hon. Gentleman does not know of this he cannot have been attending here or listening to his hon.
Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I will refer to one example, and perhaps the right hon. Member for Huyton will remember it. The former Member for Wycombe, in a discussion on this Order, at one time inferred that this Council had the authority to take some measure of control over the industry. Indeed, he asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would not instruct this Council to bring the machinery of the industry up to date and make provision for machinery in the furniture industry. Clearly—

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear that it was the last hon. Member but one for Wycombe?

Mr. Shepherd: Yes, Sir. Here was an hon. Gentleman representing the furniture industry talking about the power of the development council to put machinery into the industry which, of course, it had no authority whatever to do. I suggest that if we want a mixed economy in which we have public enterprise and private enterprise working side by side, it is no good threatening all the time the private sector of industry with this or that organisation. As I see it, the vast majority of employers, even in this industry, are anxious to do a good job, to deal with their employees fairly and recognise that


they have a responsibility to the community. It is much better to foster that view and that spirit of co-operation than to try to apply compulsion to them.

Mr. John Edwards: Does the hon. Member think it helps to foster a spirit of co-operation if the hon. Member describes those who serve on the Council as "Quislings" as he did when this matter was last under discussion?

Mr. Shepherd: I never described anyone who sat on this Council as a "Quisling." What I said was, if the Development Council was set up against the wishes of the majority of the trade, it would only end in disaster and it would be extremely unfortunate for everyone concerned. I make a plea and a strong plea for the voluntary principle. I believe the Government are right, and I am sure the history of the voluntary council will show that the Government were right.

Mr. Edwards: Before the hon. Member sits down, since he denies using the word "Quisling," perhaps I might quote him when he was referring to the former President of the Board of Trade:
He can have his members of the councils, his Quislings or semi-Quislings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 349.]

Mr. Shepherd: I think it is perfectly proper to say that if there are some members of the trade of known Socialist principles—

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. When an hon. Member says he has not used the particular expression and he is then shown by HANSARD that he did use it, is it not in accordance with the traditions of this House that he should frankly say that he has made a mistake?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Shepherd: I think I have endeavoured to explain the use of the word, which I do not recollect using at the time. I am explaining the circumstances in which it was used. It was that there were these members, whom I shall not name, who were members of the Socialist Party, and who were prepared to acquiesce in forcing this Council, which I feel would be disastrous. For that

reason, I used rather strong terms. Perhaps it would have been better had I not used such strong terms.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I think it is quite obvious that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) played a not unconsiderable part in stirring up quite a lot of political animosity on the introduction of the Development Council. He is obviously convicted out of his own mouth.
With regard to his point about there being too many organisations, that is precisely what was said by the Government that introduced the original Order. They said the organisations were not strong enough, that there should be some centralisation and that some order should be brought into the industry. I would also point out to the hon. Member that the progress that has been made in this industry has not been made all by one side. The struggles that the trade unions had to bring the industry through the period when there was sweated labour under trade boards to the position of reasonable dignity that the employees enjoy today, represent the actions of responsible people, and those people have taken quite a large share in the running of this Development Council.
If I had not known the people who must have framed this document I should have said that they were malevolent. But they are not. They are quite ordinary folk; in fact, they are mentioned in paragraph 4. They are the solicitors of the Board of Trade. I cannot pick on them from the point of view of the Order itself, but it does look as though a malicious and malevolent influence crept in as it went along, because it winds up in a grand frenzy and says:
This Order may be cited as the Clothing Industry Development Council (Dissolution) Order, 1952, and shall come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1953.
I want to address one or two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary and I hope he will answer them. First, how has the present Development Council failed in its job? [Interruption.] I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary. I would not dream of asking the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). If the hon. Member wants to join in later and tell us how it has failed we shall be prepared to join in the fun.


The Schedule sets out what the new body is intended to do. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the old organisation has failed in the effort to promote export trade? Has it failed in its efforts to improve quality and design? What about the training of persons engaged or proposing to engage in the industry? Surely he knows what has been going on. Surely he has read the reports, which have not been couched in extravagant terms but have been modest in view of the fact that there has been achievement of a very high order.
Is it in connection with the stablisation of measures, because he must reckon with the fact that the Development Council was on to this question long before it was suggested by the returning members of the Anglo-American productivity team? In fact, the Council were well on with their job then. What is to happen to the work that has been done? What is going to happen in the attitude to productivity in this industry? Has the old Council failed in its work in this field? I say that the Council has achieved a tremendous success, because for the first time in the history of this trade productivity has been regarded properly. Modern methods have been accepted as they came along. If other industries had worked on this basis there would be some hope for the future of British industry in this industrial age. This attitude has come about in this industry during the life-time of the Industrial Development Council.
This Order is bankrupt in more senses than one, for whoever has been responsible for framing it has put in a liquidator on the basis of a bankrupt concern. This organisation never has been bankrupt, either financially or in ideas. What proposals is the Parliamentary Secretary to make; what answer will he give to my right hon. Friend's questions about the dismissal of the personnel? There are only 40 employees, and they can be classified as I have already suggested. There is no reason at all why a really generous settlement cannot be reached.
The Parliamentary Secretary will be very uneasy about this. He has been propelled by influences which probably make his work easier at the Board of Trade, but, on the other hand, he will have some pangs of conscience. With

the changing pattern of industry in this country there will still be the need for statutory power to assist in the organisation and re-organisation of our older industries. In the life-time of the present Government we shall see requests not just for the levies under Section 9 of the Act, but demands for something more substantial and more suitable to the needs of the time.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: I do not want to enter into the confused and chequered history of this Development Council, but to speak for those people who might well suffer. The director and officers of the productivity consultative team probably have done the most outstanding work of any section of this Council. I join with the Parliamentary Secretary in his compliments to everyone associated with the Council, but the day to day work, the expert work, has been done by this section. I have the record, which makes it quite clear that many efficient firms have thought it wise and proper to use their advice. There are no fewer than 1,000 companies in the industry who have called upon them at one time or another in their short history.
I am most concerned about the situation in which we find ourselves tonight. I understand the complications of the law, of legal procedure, and the like; but I found the explanations of the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter not as clear as I should have liked and much more involved than I should have wished.
We cannot place the responsibilities of the Government upon a liquidator unless the President of the Board of Trade gives to him, under these special circumstances, clear and precise instructions as to the wish of the Government. I believe that the House is with us in this matter. It arises again and again under many circumstances and different conditions in connection with the ebb and flow of Government institutions.
I know that one could argue dispassionately from the point of view of the lawyer that there was a Statutory Instrument, and that the people, when they took up their positions in the organisation, should have known what that instrument was, what a very doubtful kind of instrument it was and what poor protection it would provide.


But these men were industrial experts. They came in irrespective of politics with the wish and the will to serve the industry. I should be surprised if anybody on either side of the House would attempt to take away from that fact. They have done their job extremely well in good heart and spirit. It might also be argued that they ought to be shrewd, far-seeing and hard-headed, and that 6 or 12 months ago they ought to have handed in their notices and protected themselves, instead of being faced at the last hour of the last month of the year with all the weight and power of an Order to terminate their employment.
I understand that these men and women stayed and worked in the hope and belief that this organisation, somehow or other, would continue, and that their services, somehow or other, would be required. I say to my own colleagues on this side of the House that I know, from information available to me, that they had every right to believe that that would happen and that certain arrangements may well have been arrived at which would have continued their services.
There were certain aspects of the matter on which, naturally, they had some doubt, and I cannot blame them for that. I should like to know whether they are to be expected to work out the ordinary legal notice of one or two months, or something of that kind? Are they—as they deserve—to receive in lieu of notice some cash payment commensurate with the risk and embarrassment they have suffered? Some of them are highly skilled men, jobs are not easy to get. Their expert experience cannot be put on the market very readily. As a Government and as a House of Commons we ought to show a great deal of sympathy with them.
It might be argued that this sort of thing cannot be encouraged, that it might spread and be regarded as a precedent. I do not know the position elsewhere, but I know that this is an abnormal situation and it is necessary to show a largeness of heart in the matter. In any good company—and most companies are good companies—with good employers—and most employers are good employers—we should never in any circumstances consider releasing these men without at least

a minimum of six months' pay in lieu of notice.

Sir William Darling: What about the Liverpool Cotton Exchange?

Mr. Robson Brown: Whatever wrong may be carried out in one case should not be regarded as a precedent in another.

Sir W. Darling: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the policy followed by the late Government in the treatment of the life-time employees of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange can be applied appropriately to these circumstances?

Mr. Robson Brown: I should hope that a Conservative Government would not do anything about which we have criticised other people in the past, or give any advantage to hon. Members opposite.
I will close with an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, and through him to the President, to give instructions to the liquidator to see that these people are not kept in uncertainty. They have families to consider, and their own positions. And when this Council is dissolved, I hope that information will be given to us, either on the Floor of the House, or by the staff, which will satisfy the conscience of everyone.

11.25 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am sure that the House has been impressed by the speech we have just heard. I think that what the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) has told us confirms the belief of many of us on this side that this dissolution Order is not inspired by the legitimate needs of the industry or the consumer, but is part of the doctrinaire destructiveness which we have come to associate with the party opposite. The creation of the freedoms they talk about is the creation of the freedom to stagnate, freedom to stand still, freedom to do nothing about producing inside the industry, and inside the distribution, the maximum efficiency in the interests of the consumers, about whom hon. Members opposite prate so much.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) called out, a few moments ago, "The consumers elected us at the last Election." I hope that the consumer will realise that once again, in


this dissolution Order, there has been betrayal of his interest, and that he merely serves as a symbol in the propaganda of the party opposite at Election times.
When it comes to the question of raising standards or trying to meet the needs of the women in the home, we find merely doctrinaire destructiveness. As the hon. Member for Esher told us, the Development Council is being destroyed because it was working effectively. He mentioned the increased efficiency which a team of trained staff had produced. The director of a clothing firm has told me that after the efficiency team of the Council had advised some 200 firms, there was, in these firms, an average increase in efficiency of about 32 per cent.

Sir W. Darling: Prices are coming down.

Mrs. Castle: If it is a result of this action that prices are coming down, why are we destroying this Council? Clearly, the purpose of this Order is to stop this kind of activity. If that is not so, why do we have to abandon a body which has been set up with such effectiveness?
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) clearly supported this Order because he wants contraction of the Council's functions, a contraction of the work. When he tells us that he believes in the voluntary principle, and that it will achieve all that we want, I am reminded of the Press Council on the voluntary basis, for which we are still waiting, and for which we shall wait for an indefinite period. What I am concerned about tonight is the effect on the improvement which we want in clothing prices and standards.
What particularly alarms me is that as a result of the abandonment of this body we shall now be handed over completely to the most reactionary and restricted influences. I get very tired of being told, as the hon. Member for Cheadle told us, about the whims and fancies of women and the difficulties they create for the clothing industry. I assure the hon. Member that the whims and fancies of women are never paid any attention whatever by manufacturers, and that we are still trying to find an effective way of trying, by our whims and fancies, to influence production. Women have been fighting for years for a better standardisation of sizes in clothing and

for a better range of sizes. If we leave it to the voluntary principle, we shall wait for ever.
The vaunted service that comes from the voluntary principle does not seem to materialise. I am tired, too, of being told, "Leave it to the operations of the competitive principle." There is no such thing, because what happens when we disband public bodies like this, with independent members on them, is that behind the scenes arrangements are made which penalise the customer and take all the real effectiveness out of competition.
I want to give the House one example, and this is the prime reason why I intervene in the debate. We now have two things happening in a whole range of services which are of tremendous importance in the interests of the consumer. We have, on the one hand, the abandonment of all the controls of the Utility scheme. The price controls, specification controls, margin controls and all the guarantees and protection for the consumer are being disbanded as the D scheme is being extended to a wider and wider range of goods.
What is being put in its place? In the furniture industry, at least there is still a Furniture Development Council which can watch the interests of the consumer to some extent, but in the field of clothing we shall not have even that kind of guarantee. We have here the deliberate abandonment by the Government of a body which could have been a watchdog for the consumer, with the result that the activities which could be carried out to lower the cost of living will not be carried out. The old private arrangements will be made behind closed doors, and the consumer will once again be left out.
The Order that set up the original Development Council included in its Schedule among the functions that the Council was to operate:
Promoting research for improving arrangements for marketing and distributing products.
arid the constitution of the Council included as one of the representatives
one person having special knowledge of matters relating to the distribution of products of the industry.
I do not know whether the functions of the new voluntary council are to include that general survey over distribution. I


hope that they will, because as the industry is at present organised, prices are being kept unnecessarily high against the consumer.
I wish to give an example and to mention one firm in particular, not because I have any kind of animosity against that firm but because I believe that what this firm is doing is typical of what is being done by other firms also. I speak of a firm for which I have very great respect, and that is Horrockses. I have great respect for them because I think the quality of Horrockses women's clothing is very high indeed. Their standards of design are extremely high, and I have on more than one occasion appeared in the House in Messrs. Horrockses' products.
I was alarmed, however, when a retailer, in a part of the country which I cannot name in case he is penalised, showed me only a few weeks ago a letter sent to him as an agent of Horrockses— a letter, obviously, of a circular type that is going to all agents of Horrockses—telling him that in his chain of shops, in which he was selling their goods, he could only be supplied with those goods if he observed a minimum retail margin of 50 per cent. He said to me, "Mrs. Castle, this is absolutely absurd. I can sell these items and make an adequate profit on a retail margin of 20 per cent.; I shall be very satisfied with that."
Here in this House we talk of the cost of living, and the hardships upon the consumers, and the need for efficiency; and hon. Members opposite plead with us to "leave it to the competitive principle." If we leave it to the competitive principle, operating behind closed doors, the sort of thing I have just mentioned goes on. It is intolerable that the consumer should be forced to pay 30 per cent. more on the retail margin than is legitimately, and admittedly, necessary.
It is only by such a body as that with which we are concerned tonight, and by this House accepting responsibility for the protection of the consumer, and by having both sides of industry represented, together with independent members, that we shall have the injection of a real spirit of healthy competition inside the industry. I can only deplore the dissolution of the Council when it has contributed so much to the efficiency of the industry, and I

indict hon. Members opposite with the charge of the most outrageous hypocrisy ever known in the history of British politics.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I must admit that, in the past, I have been somewhat prejudiced against this Development Council, but, as a result of a visit to its premises in Manchester, I have discovered that it has done a lot of valuable work. At the same time, it is my contention that that work could still be done as well, and perhaps better, by a voluntary body.
I beg to differ from the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) in her remarks about the voluntary body not being able to look after the interests of the consumer. I believe it can, and I hold the somewhat strange belief that the consumer is often much better able to look after himself than some hon. Members opposite would have us believe.
The voluntary body, if set up, should be for those firms who want it; and those firms should pay for its services. Those who do not want the services should not be compelled to pay. I believe that the time may well have come for the dissolution of the Development Council, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure the House that the new voluntary body will be set up as quickly as it possibly can be.
I am sure that many of those who have worked for the Council in the past are most anxious to go on working with the proposed new body, and it is only fair, therefore, that those people should be told as soon as possible just where they stand. Many of them want to go on serving with the voluntary body, believing that it will do just as good work as the Council. Otherwise, many of them may drift away. I have spoken to them, and many tell me they have had offers of other jobs; and, after all, they have to safeguard their own futures. This is their living, and if they do not know where they stand—if they do not know whether they will be appointed to the voluntary body—they may well be lost to it. That would be a most unfortunate thing.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to assure the House later that he feels fairly confident that the


new body will be able to give at least as good a service to the industry as the Clothing Industry Development Council have done and, what I think is more important, that it will be able to afford to give that service. Perhaps he may be able to give us a rather more exact idea of the value of the surplus assets of the Council, which, he has told us, are substantial. I suppose that these assets will be used to give the voluntary body a start and when they have been used they will have to depend for continuation on the Levy.
My hon. and learned Friend spoke of the levy and said it might be discussed on some future occasion. I wonder if he could tell me whether the levy is to be a compulsory levy, imposed on all firms in the industry whether they want to use the new organisation or not, or is to be paid only by those firms who want to use it. It seems to me a somewhat strange doctrine to impose a compulsory levy on what is said to be a voluntary body. I believe that those firms who feel that they want to use the new organisation should pay and those who do not want to use it should not be compelled. Most hon. Members, probably all, will recognise that this new body will have a great deal of useful service to give the industry and I am sure that they will wish it well.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am sure that everyone on this side of the House and many hon. Members opposite will agree with what the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) and the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) said in support of the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on behalf of those who have been engaged in the work of this Development Council.
I suggest, with considerable conviction, to the Parliamentary Secretary that the liquidator has no power whatever to go beyond the strict letter of the law, any more than has any other liquidator. A liquidator, I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, is a kind of statutory cad, while a trustee in bankruptcy—as we have been told by an eminent judge—is entitled, and, indeed, bound, to act as a gentleman. On this occasion I do not ask for that high standard of a liquidator. Under this Order, he is not even able to act like a good employer.

For that reason alone it ought to be reconsidered and not pressed on the House now.
The origin of this and other development councils was in the working party reports and the Heavy Clothing Industry Report was the first. It was signed by Sir Cecil Weir who ought to command our respect as an independent man of good sense and unrivalled business and administrative experience. It was also signed by Dame Anne Loughlin, to whom commendatory reference has been made and another distinguished lady, a constituent of mine, Miss Edith Maycock, who knows this industry very well. Incidentally, she was a member of a party which went to America and made comparisons there.
They said, and they were unanimous about it—the employers' representatives, independent members and trade union representatives—that the reason for having a strong independent element was to remove any suspicion that the organisation might tend to operate in a manner which would put the interests of the industry before the national interest—and those of us who listened to the hon. Member for Cheadle can have no doubt that that is a very real danger and suspicion—and, in addition,
to secure to the organisation the advantage of experience in other industries.
The effect of this Order is to remove the independent chairman and other independent members, thus taking away the guidance they have so successfully given to this industry, with the results stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), with all the knowledge and experience he has of the industry. It is undoubted that it has done excellent work and it is equally undoubted that an important element in this has been the independent members of the Council. The employers have spent the whole of their time carping at it, for ideological reasons.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The reason the opposition came from the trade was because the clothing industry is so diversified, and takes in so many quite separate industries, that the Council could never operate, and did never operate, satisfactorily. It was ill-conceived and, from the first, had not a chance of delivering the goods.

Mr. Mitchison: That is exactly the reason it should not be deprived of the independent chairman because, otherwise, the voluntary body will either fall into the hands of one section of the industry as against another, or will be, what I believe it will be, a hopeless muddle.
Nobody wants to oblige people to do things for no particular reason. But there is such a thing as a national interest in these matters. I should have thought the discussion tonight would have made it clear that it needed a good deal of safeguarding. What we are asked to do is to neglect that entirely. The voluntary principle is going to be, not what the employees in this rather haphazard and not very well-organised industry want, and not even what the weaker employers want. It is to be the wishes of those who have so far spent their time in the rather discreditable job of trying to secure independence and control for themselves, and for no one else, without regard to the best interests of the industry, of the nation, and particularly of the workers in it.
I would say that some extraneous element is absolutely necessary, not only because of the character of the industry, but for another reason. We know that the difficulty in this industry has been that it is of a highly seasonal character and that it has an undue share of intermittent unemployment whatever the general level of employment may be anywhere else. That causes a great deal of suffering. To leave it now, in effect, to the so-called voluntary principle will mean letting down the consumers and the workers in the industry.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will stiffen themselves a little against the pressure that is put on them. I have a little bit of pressure here. Somebody spoke about the levy. Let me tell the House what these gentlemen have suggested. They say:
It is a fundamental feature of our scheme that money shall be collected only to finance a programme which has already been settled and that each section of the industry shall pay only for such services as are of benefit to that section.
That is the voluntary principle. I call it the law of the jungle and this particular application of it a piece of parish pumpery disgraceful to the person who wrote

it. It is the business of this House and the Government to resist it. We must have some regard to our responsibilities. Let this decision now be reconsidered.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I hope that as a consequence of the observations made in this debate, and not least the observations made from the Government side, the Parliamentary Secretary, even now, will withdraw this disgraceful Order. If it were objectionable on no other ground, it would be objectionable on the ground that the Government themselves are doing something in relation to the contracts of service which the staff have with the Council, and the staff are quite helpless in the matter. The contracts will suddenly be brought to an end and there will be no provision made to recompense them for the loss and damage they have suffered.
The Government have not a very good record in this respect, but it is a little better when they take second thoughts. It will be remembered that when the White Paper was introduced in relation to the transport policy of the Government there was no reference to the giving of compensation to people whose contracts of service would have been brought to an end entirely by arbitrary Government action. In the White Paper the Government were quite wrong on that point and had they introduced legislation in the terms of the White Paper it would have been a quite disgraceful and shabby thing to do. But better counsels prevailed after they had reconsidered the matter.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider that matter now in relation to this Order, because fundamentally, it is the same thing. It is a shocking thing when a Government interferes in a contract and brings it arbitrarily to an end, leaving nothing to enable acts of mercy or decency to be done.
The Parliamentary Secretary, I thought, had a guilty conscience on this point when he made his opening remarks. He made it rather worse by what he said than if he had just read the Order. He certainly gave me the impression that not only were the Government going to bring these contracts to an end, but that it was being done advisedly. That makes the case even more disgraceful than would have been the case had it merely been


overlooked. The Parliamentary Secretary said something which was distasteful to me. He tried to get out of the difficulty by referring to certain points in the Order.
He invited us to study paragraph 4. Well, let us look at paragraph 4. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to imagine his position if a contract of service which he had was suddenly brought to an end by Government action, and he looked at paragraph 4 of this disgraceful Order to see what his position would be. He would find that the liquidator, with the sanction of the Board of Trade, had power to
bring, defend or continue any action or other legal proceedings in the name and on behalf of the council.
Cold comfort there, surely, for a man who is kicked out of his job without any compensation at all. It might be that the person would look at sub-paragraph (b) to see if that would help him.
Then he would find that the liquidator, again with the sanction of the Board of Trade, has power to execute in the name of and on behalf of the Council any of their functions so far as may be necessary for the beneficial winding-up thereof. How will that help a person who has been thrown out of his employment, without any redress whatever?
It is necessary to dispose of this part of the Order because we have been invited to consider it by the Parliamentary Secretary and he has said that we shall find the answer here; that here is something that can be done so far as the employee is concerned. Paragraph 4 (1, c) talks about the appointment of a solicitor to assist him in the performance of his duty, and carries things no further. He gets no help from sub-paragraphs 4 (1, c) and (1, d), and that concludes the particular part of this Order to which the employee is referred.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no chance at all for the person who has been wrongfully and scandalously dismissed in this peremptory manner to do anything much more than to get himself going with his law suit. The Parliamentary Secretary has done something in relation to this Order which, in my submission, is absolutely disgraceful, and I ask him at this stage to reconsider it and withdraw this disgraceful measure.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I wish to answer, out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) and others, a few of the points, and I will come, at the end, to the matter which obviously concerns a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and which was alluded to in rather extravagantly inaccurate terms by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams).
The right hon. Member for Huyton said that, in a sense, the passing of this Order ended the effect of the statute. That really is a great exaggeration. Those councils set up under the statute that can act effectively will do so, but, where there is one which cannot perform its functions because of lack of agreement with the industry, it may have to be brought to an end. But that does not mean that the statute has lost all its use.
In connection with the attitude of the trade unions, I dare say that there is little difference between us, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I attempted to express with complete accuracy what I understood when I answered his recent Parliamentary Question. I said "the unions regretted that the Council had not enjoyed this support and confidence and that, in these circumstances, my right hon. Friend has had to ask Parliament to dissolve it." I believe that was a completely accurate statement of the attitude of the trade unions. Regretting it, as they did, I thought they realised its necessity. The right hon. Gentleman said that the only explanation is that we have capitulated to vested interests. A more accurate statement of the matter is that we have recognised the facts. I sometimes wonder whether one of the deepest convictions of hon. Members opposite is the great principle of non-recognition of fact.
There is one matter which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes)—the work that has been done by the Council on body measurements. That work will be able to be completed. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Item 3 of the Schedule, he will see that one of the specified purposes is the collection and formulation of statistics. The money necessary for the completion of the work would, if necessary, come from the surplus funds.


I come now to the matter that has quite genuinely troubled a great number of hon. Members, and I must assume that my exposition was a bad one. When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen talk about people receiving great injury without any possibility of redress they are saying something which is quite wrong. What I said would happen by operation of law is that this Order, coming into force on 1st January, would itself act as the termination of the contract; but the rights that then ensue are enforceable, if necessary, by legal action. But I think they can and will be settled amicably and justly between the liquidator and the persons concerned, and the arrangement will then have to have the sanction of the President.
I believe that the position is that under the Order the liquidator has power to do what is reasonable and appropriate, with the sanction of the President. I think that the function of the President laid down in the Order makes it quite improper for me to express in advance, an opinion of what is reasonable and appropriate; but let me say at once, in reply to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and others, who say, "Why did not you go beyond what was right and proper, reasonable and appropriate and take power to give a gratuity?"

Mr. Mitchison: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. Strauss: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought he was asking for the power which a private person might have to give what I called—without using it as a term of abuse—a gratuity, meaning something quite beyond anything involved in the contract.
I can understand the argument being put forward that it is desirable. All I can say is that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite hold that view they should have framed Section 8 of the statute differently, because it is absolutely clear, as I am advised, that we must introduce an Order somewhat in this form to dissolve the Council within the meaning of that Section; and to lay down terms of generosity going beyond anything that is fair and reasonable under the particular contract would be—in the

view which I am advised is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government—ultra vires their powers under the Act.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. and learned Gentleman began his explanation—which I do not think leaves us very much clearer than we were before—with the words "I think"—"I think the liquidator is permitted to behave in an amicable and reasonable manner." It surely would have been desirable, particularly in view of the strength of feeling on both sides of the House—for him to have been quite clear on this matter before he came to the House.
I am still not clear whether the liquidator would be able to go beyond the legal terms of any contract that might exist. The hon. and learned Gentleman has just suggested that it might be considered ultra vires Section 8 of the Act. That is perhaps a matter which can be left to my legal friends to deal with; but is he telling us now that even with the pressure of the Treasury it is quite impossible for the liquidator to make any provision beyond the contract?

Mr. Strauss: I can conceive that there may be a contract that has prescribed exactly what shall be due in those circumstances. It is conceivable, and I have little doubt that that would prevail. Very often however there might be a question of the determination of the contract by operation of law. I agree that the claim is then capable of legal determination, but what the liquidator could then do, if what purports to be a legal claim is brought, is to compromise the claim with the approval of my right hon. Friend.
What I was suggesting was that it would have been ultra vires for this Order to prescribe generous treatment of these men regardless of their contracts. Let me give one example to the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose one of these gentlemen, straight away, gets more profitable employment elsewhere. Is he suggesting that he will have suffered a great inconvenience? If hon. Gentlemen opposite will consider what the Order provides and consider the limitations of Section 8 of their own statute they will find their charges groundless.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 132.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[10.2 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Delargy, H. J.


Adams, Richard
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dodds, N. N.


Albu, A. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Donnelly, D. L.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Driberg, T. E. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Callaghan, L. J.
Edelman, M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Awbery, S. S.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Rt Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Baird, J.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, G. R
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Clunie, J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Bartley, P.
Coldrick, W.
Fernyhough, E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Collick, P. H.
Field, W. J.


Bence, C. R.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fienburgh, W


Benn, Wedgwood
Cove, W. G.
Finch, H. J.


Benson, G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Beswick, F.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Follick, M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, M. M


Bing, G. H. C.
Daines, P.
Forman, J. C


Blackburn, F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blenkinsop, A
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Freeman, John (Watford)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gibson, C. W


Bowen, E. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Glanville, James


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Gooch, E. G.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Brockway, A. F.
Deer, G.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)




Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Slater, J.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Grey, C. F.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snow, J. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Grimond, J.
Manuel, A. C.
Sparks, J. A


Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.
Steele, T.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hamilton, W. W
Mikardo, Ian
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hardy, E. A.
Monslow, W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hargreaves, A.
Moody, A. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hastings, S.
Morley, R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Herbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hobson, C. R.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Holman, P.
Nally, W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Holt, A. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thornton, E.


Houghton, Douglas
O'Brien, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Timmons, J.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G H.
Tomney, F.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.
Usborne, H. C.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Viant, S P.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wade, D. W.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Janner, B.
Pannell, Charles
Watkins, T. E.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pargiter, G. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Paton, J
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Peart, T. F.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
West, D. G.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Popplewell, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Porter, G.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Proctor, W. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Wigg, George


Kenyon, C.
Reeves, J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wilkins, W. A.


King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Willey, F. T.


Kinley, J.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rev Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lewis, Arthur
Ross, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lindgren, G. S.
Royle, C.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MacColl, J. E.
Short, E. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


McGhee, H. G.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Yates, V. F.


McInnes, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)



McLeavy, F.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullard, D. G.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Bullock, Capt. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Burden, F. F. A.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Butcher, H. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Birch. Nigel
Campbell, Sir David


Arbuthnot, John
Bishop, F. P.
Carr, Robert


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Black, C. W.
Carson, Hon. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bossom, A. C.
Cary, Sir Robert


Baker, P. A. D.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Channon, H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Braine, B. R.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Banks, Col. C.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Barber, Anthony
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Cole, Norman


Barlow, Sir John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Colegate, W. A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Cooper-Key, E. M.







Craddock, Beresford (Speithorne)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jennings, R.
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crouch, R. F.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Profumo, J. D.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kaberry, D.
Raikes, H. V.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Rayner, Brig. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, H. W.
Redmayne, M.


De la Bere, Sir Rupert
Lambert, Hon. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Renton, D. L. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robertson, Sir David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robson-Brown, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Roper, Sir Harold


Drayson, G. B.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Martin
Russell, R. S.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, H. N.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Duthie, W. S.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Erroll, F. J.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fell, A.
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, R. Donald


Finlay, Graeme
Low, A. R. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Shepherd, William


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Fort, R.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Foster, John
McAdden, S. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McCallum, Major D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Snadden, W. McN.


Fyfe, Rt Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Soames, Capt. C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McKibbin, A. J.
Speir, R. M.


Gammans, L. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stevens, G. P.


Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Storey, S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major S. F.
Summers, G. S.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, A. E.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Teeling, W.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maude, Angus
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maudling, R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mellor, Sir John
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Molson, A. H. E
Tilney, John


Hay, John
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Touche, Sir Gordon


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Turner, H. F. L.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Turton, R. H.


Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vane, W. M. F.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Vosper, D. F.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hollis, M. C.
Nutting, Anthony
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Oakshott, H. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Odey, G. W.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Horobin, I. M.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
William, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Charles tan (Hendon, N.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Osborne, C.
Wills, G.


Hurd, A. R.
Partridge, E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
York, C.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Mr. Drewe.


Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Division No. 53.]
AYES
[12.7 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Nicholls, Harmar


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gough, C. F. H.
Oakshott, H. D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gower, H. R.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Grimond, J.
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Partridge, E.


Banks, Col. C.
Harden, J. R. E.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Pitman, I. J.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hay, John
Powell, J. Enoch


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heald, Sir Lionel
Profumo, J. D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Heath, Edward
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Redmayne, M.


Bishop, F. P.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Renton, D. L. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bowen, E. R.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Roper, Sir Harold


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hirst, Geoffrey
Russell, R. S.


Braine, B. R.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hollis, M. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Scott, R. Donald


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Shepherd, William


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Butcher, H. W.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Stevens, G. P.


Campbell, Sir David
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Carr, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Storey, S.


Channon, H.
Kaberry, D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kerr, H. W.
Summers, G. S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Langford-Holt, J. A
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Leather, E. H. C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield )
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Crouch, R. F.
Linstead, H. N.
Tilney, John


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Touche, Sir Gordon


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Longden, Gilbert
Turner, H. F. L.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Low, A. R. W.
Vane, W M. F.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McCallum, Major D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Markham, Major S. F.
Wills, G.


Fell, A.
Maude, Angus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Finlay, Graeme
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Wood, Hon. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Mellor, Sir John



Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper.


Galbraith, Cmdr, T. D. (Pollok)






NOES


Albu, A. H.
Brockway, A. F.
Fernyhough, E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Field, W. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Callaghan, L. J.
Fienburgh, W.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Carmichael, J.
Finch, H. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Champion, A. J
Forman, J. C.


Bartley, P.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bence, C. R.
Collick, P. H.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Benn, Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Benson, G.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Beswick, F.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Blackburn, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Grey, C. F.


Blenklnsop, A.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Blyton, W. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Han, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hannan, W.


Bowden, H. W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hargreaves, A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hayman, F. H.







Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Holman, P.
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Houghton, Douglas
Nally, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thornton, E.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.
Usborne, H. C.


Irving, W. J (Wood Green)
Peart, T. F.
Watkins, T. E.


Janner, B.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Porter, G.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
White, Mrs.Eirene (E. Flint)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rhodes, H.
Willey, F. T.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Keenan, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Royle, C.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Lewis, Arthur
Shackleton, E. A. A
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


MacColl, J. E.
Short, E. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon, A


McGhee, H. G.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wyatt, W. L.


McInnes, J
Slater, J.
Yates, V. F.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Snow, J. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Mayhew, C. P.
Steele, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Horace Holmes.

Resolved,
That the Draft Clothing Industry Development Council (Dissolution) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

LACE INDUSTRY

Draft Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1952 [copy presented 1st December] approved.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1952 [copy presented 1st December] approved.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock, a.m.